SHAKTI PADA NATH Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision case arises out of an application under section 401 read with section 482 Cr. P. C. filed by the accused who has been convicted of an offence under section 354 I. P. C. He was tried before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Asansol in G. R. Case No. 1822 of 1980 for the aforesaid offence found guilty convicted therefore and sentenced to R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000J- in default to suffer R.I. for three months. Aggrieved with the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate he went up in appeal and the Additional Sessions Judge, Asansol while dismissing the said appeal, namely, Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1982 upheld the conviction, but reduced the sentence to R.I. for three months and to a fine of Rs. 100.00 in default to R.L for one month.

(2.) The allegations made against the accused were that on 20.9.80 at about 6 A.M. when Rina Mondal (17 years old) was proceeding along the road to board a bus to reach her school at Asansol the petitioner came from behind on a cycle and leaving the cycle leaning against a tree caught hold of the arms of Rina and dragged her by her sari. Rina was scared and accordingly screamed. Ganesh Das coming from the front side reached the spot and helped Rina to regain her normal frame of mind and to board the bus to enable her to appear in the examination scheduled to be held that day. The F.I.R. was lodged at about mid-day at 12-30 P.M. by Rina's father Sushil Mondal who after interrogating Rina was satisfied as to the -authenticity of the version of the assault which had reached him earlier. In the court below P.W. 1 Sushil Mondal examined himself as P.W. 1 Rina herself was examined as P.W. 2, Ganesh Das the only eve witness was examined as P.W. 3, Anima the mother of Rina was examined as P.W. 4 and Suresh Dey, the I.O, was examined as P.W. 5. On the basis of the evidence adduced the learned Court below was satisfied that the guilt of the accused under section 354 I.P.C. was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The appellate Court also arrived at the same finding.

(3.) Mr. Baren Sur, the learned Advocate for the petitioner however, contends that the two courts overlooked the discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses interse, the improbability and unbelievable character of the accusation, the delay in the matter of lodging the F.I.R. and above all the interested and partisan character of the eye witness Ganesh Das. Mr. Sur submits that PW.3 Ganesh Das is hostile towards the petitioner and his family and it is evident from his testimony in the court below. Admittedly Ganesh Das is a step-brother of the father of the accused and was not in visiting terms with the family of the accused. Admittedly he was a witness in a case against the elder brother of the accused. It is pointed out that some suggestions were given to Ganesh Das that there was rivalry between him and the accused over romantic association With Rina. Mr. Sur accordingly submits that Ganesh Das was so hostile to the accused that he would not hesitate to depose falsely. He points out that deposition of Rina indicates that soon after the alleged occurrence she had been to the local thana and reported the occurrence, but the prosecution made no attempt to bring from the thana any documentary evidence regarding the so called report. Further he argues that Rina in course of her deposition pretended that she did not know the accused by name but the deposition of Rina's mother indicates that Rina knew the accused both by name and face. He argues that Rina was not simple and truthful. His further argument is that Rina deposed that accused on his cycle came from behind placed his cycle against a nearby tree and caught hold of the hands of Rina from behind and thereafter pulled her by her Sari, but Ganesh Das deposed that accused cycle on a ziz zag fashion to inconvenience and tease Rina. Mr. Sur argues that the discrepancy in the evidence of Rina and Ganesh Das makes the' prosecution case unbelievable. Mr. Sur's further argument is that the FI.R. was filed more than 6 hours after the occurrence and an inference is inescapable that it was lodged after the consultation with Ganesh Das to falsely implicate the accused. The arguments noticed above do not, weigh with us. There is no dispute that at the relevant time Rina was a school student and she regularly attended school by walking a short distance from her village to board a public bus at bus stand and to reach her school at Asansol. From the totality of the evidence we have no hesitation to conclude that coming from behind the accused touched the hands of Rina when she was going to school. The sense of modesty of a girl of Rina's age, and susceptibility was outraged. A girl is most unlikely to make such false accusation and against anybody as the accusation may recoil and affect her own reputation and tarnish her image in the locality and in school. The father of Rina was only cautious and prudent. Af-of Rina came back from the School during the midday after, appearing in her examination ho talked with her and was satisfied that the reports which earlier reached him were not false and that Rina was not a consenting party to the episode. Rina's father therefore went to the thana accompanied by Rina and lodged the F.I.R. We see no reason to take exception to the concurrent findings of the two courts below to the effect that the prosecution had beyond reasonably doubt proved the guilt of the accused under section 354 I. P. C.