PANCHURAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.01.2002 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Rajnandgaon in Special Case No. 22/2001 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 294, 323 and 354 Penal Code as well as sections 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short the "Special Act") and sentencing him to undergo RI for on month each u/s 294 and 323, RI for six months u/s 354 Penal Code and RI for six months with fine of Rs. 1000.00 under the special Act, plus default stipulations.

(2.) As per the case of prosecution, on 03.10.1998 FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged by prosecutrix (PW-2) aged about 23 years alleging that on that day at about 2 PM near a banyan tree the accused/appellant was abusing one Nandu Agrawal and when she asked as to why he was un-necessary hurling abuses, he started abusing her filthily and called her "Mahrin Chamrin". He is also alleged to have beaten her with hands and fists and also thrown her on the ground saying that he would outrage her modesty as she was un-necessarily interfering in the matter. On account of beating the prosecutrix is stated to have suffered injuries on her right hand and back. FIR further says that when Kaushaliya Bai (PW-6) intervened in the matter, accused/appellant threw her also on the ground. Prosecutrix has further alleged that had the people not come for her safety, accused/appellant might have outraged her modesty. Based on this FIR, offence under Sections 294, 323, 354 Penal Code and 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (xi) of the Special Act was registered against the accused/appellant. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by the police followed by framing of charge by the Court below for the offences mentioned in FIR (Ex. P-1).

(3.) So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 07 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. Two witnesses have also been examined by the defence in support of its case.