RAMRATAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction passed by Special Judge (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes), Guna, in Special Sessions Trial No. 07/99 dated 29.2.2000 by which the appellant has been convicted under section 3 (i) (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under section 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 100/ - for former section and rigorous imprisonment for six months for latter section. It is further ordered that in default of payment of fine he will suffer seven days' rigorous imprisonment. It is also ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) IN short, the case of the prosecution is that on 19.1.1999 in midday at about 12:00 noon to 1.00 p.m. prosecutrix was alone in her house at Kishanpura and her husband had gone for irrigation in the field. Appellant came there with an intention to outrage her modesty. He caught hold her hand as nobody was nearby to her house and as soon as her husband came, he tried to catch him but he escaped and ran away. On hearing the cry, Jamunalal and Hansraj came on the spot and she lodged the report at Police Station Fatehgarh. After due investigation, charge - sheet was filed. The trial Court convicted the appellant as stated aforesaid. The defence of the appellant is that he has falsely been implicated due to enmity.

(3.) PROSECUTION examined, in all, six witnesses. Guddi Bai (PW 1) stated in her statement that she beongs to "Chamar Caste" and on the date of incident it is stated that she was in the house alone and her husband had gone for labour work. At that time, appellant came in the house and caught hold her hand. On her cry, nobody heard but at that time her husband Kesaria (PW 4) came there. Her husband tried to catch the appellant but he ran away by giving push to him. The report was lodged to the police station which is Ex. P -1. Police also prepared the seizure memo which is Ex. P -3 by which the pieces of bangles were seized. In her cross -examination, she stated that before giving the evidence in the Court her previous statement was read over and explained by the police and given the statement as per advice. She also admits that from her house, the house of Jamunalal (PW 3) and Hansraj (PW 2) is at short distance. In para 4 of her cross -examination, first she denied that there was any dispute between her husband Kesaria (PW 4) and Badri and her husband had beaten Badri but later on she admitted that Badri lodged the report against her husband alongwith the appellant. In para No. 6, she denied that in the report Ex. P -1, the portion A to A was written by her about the cry at the time of incident. In para 9, she stated that Badri is her brother -in -law but it is not correct that due to report lodged by the appellant against her husband, she has lodged the false report against the appellant.