MOHANLAL MAHATO Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 8/5/2024 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Rourkela in Special G.R. Case No.06 of 2018 arising out of RN Palli P.S. Case No.57 of 2018. By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the Appellant (accused) has been convicted for commission of the offence under Sec. 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two (2) years and pay fine of Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one (1) month for commission of the said offence with a further direction that in the event of realization of fine amount, the same shall be paid to the victim towards compensation.

(2.) Prosecution Case:- On 19/2/2018 around 10.00 a.m., the victim had been to Shanti Nagar for work and then had gone towards the store room of Dhariti Flour Mill to bring the working materials. It is stated that the accused caught hold of her from behind and forcibly pressed breasts. It is further stated that the victim thereafter having pushed, the accused went outside the Flour Mill and informed everything to the family members whereafter the FIR was lodged. Basing upon the said FIR, a criminal case, being registered, the investigation commenced. On completion of the investigation, the Final Form was submitted placing this accused to face the trial for commission of the offence under Sec. 354 of the IPC read with Sec. 3(1)(4)/3(1)(w)(i)/3(2)(va) of the S.C. and S.T. (POA) Act. The Trial Court, on going through the evidence of the prosecution witness (P.Ws.1 to 7) and the documents admitted in evidence on their behalf (Exts.1 to 10), has acquitted this accused of the charge under the Special Act, but then having held that the prosecution case to have been established for commission of the offence under Sec. 354 of the IPC, has held him guilty for the said offence and sentenced him as afore-stated.

(3.) The defence plea is that of complete denial and false implication. The accused, however, has not tendered any evidence in support of such plea.