STATE Vs. KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent here -in -after referred to as the accused" who belongs to a Brahmin community criminally assaulted the complainantâ„¢s wife Mst. Bhagan, who belongs to a chamar community, and dragged here on the mud and made her half naked and thus outraged her modesty when on 27.7.1976 she was taking a bath at a public spring in village Takoli. The said incident took place on account of the fact that the accused got annoyed that as to why she touched the water of such spring and got it polluted.

(2.) IN this regard, a case under section 4/6 of the Un -touchability Offences Act and U/S 354 of the RPC was registered against the accused by the police, who, on completion of the investigation, was challaned in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur. After presentation of the challan, the accused was charged for an offence under Section 323 RPC and U/S 4/6 of Untouchability Offences Act, 1955, and, on the trial of the case, the accused stood acquitted of the said charge by the trial court.

(3.) AGGRIEVED of the said order of acquittal, the prosecution filed an acquittal appeal in this court as far back as in the year 1979, and challenged it on the ground that the ingredients of the offence Under Section 4/6 of the Untouchability offences Act and Section 354 RPC were fully proved beyond any shadow of doubt against the accused. The delay in lodging of the FIR was fully explained and the court below has erred in holding that there was un -explained delay in filing of the FIR. The observation of the trial court holding that, as similar witnesses were not cited both in the challan and the complaint, therefore, the witnesses examined for the trial of the accused on the basis of the police challan were not the real witnesses, was not correct. It was submitted that the list of the prosecution witnesses, which was given in the complaint was not conclusive and a further list could be provided within the contemplation of Section 252 (2) Cr. P.C. It is all along the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses to be valued for the purposes of deciding of a criminal case and the statements of the witnesses cannot be brushed aside on account of the fact that they bear relationship with the complainant.