Anil vs State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 8.3.2002 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Khandwa in special case No. 60/2001, wherein the appellant has been convicted of offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter it will be referred to "Special Act") and sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, one month''s rigorous imprisonment.

The prosecution''s case, in short, is that, on 28.5.2001, at about 3 p.m., the prosecutrix (P.W.1) was preparing rice from paddy at the house of Nani Bai, situated at village Dedhtalai (Police Station Khaknar, District Burhanpur), the appellant went inside the house and held the hand of the prosecutrix and also pressed her breasts. When the prosecutrix shouted, the appellant ran away. However, he gave a threat that the prosecutrix should not inform anyone about the incident otherwise, he would kill the prosecutrix. After completion of the work, she went back to her house and when her husband Babulal (P.W.2) and mother-in-law came back to the house, she told them about the incident. On the next day, the prosecutrix lodged an FIR, Ex.P/1 at Police Station Khaknar. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and case was committed to the Special Court.

The appellant abjured his guilt. He took a plea that he was falsely implicated in the matter due to previous enmity. However, no defence evidence was adduced.

Special Judge after considering the prosecution''s evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.

Since the appeal was old and no one was appearing for the appellant, Shri Prakash Gupta, Advocate, from the panel of High Court Legal Services Committee and who has vast experience in dealing with the criminal cases, was appointed to argue the matter on behalf of the appellant and thereafter, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

If entire case is considered on the basis of the evidence adduced then, the prosecutrix (P.W.1) has accepted that her husband and brother-in-law did not talk with the accused Anil. Bablu @ Jai Singh (P.W.3), brother-in-law of the prosecutrix has accepted in his cross-examination that in the year 1993, sister of the appellant Anil had lodged an FIR against them and fine of Rs.1,100/- was imposed by the trial Court against Bablu @ Jai Singh and others. Under such circumstances, it appears that there was enmity between the appellant and brother-in-law of the prosecutrix. Enmity is a double edged weapon. Due to enmity someone can lodge a false FIR to implicate his enemy falsely or someone may commit offence due to enmity. Hence, the testimony of various witnesses is required to be minutely examined.

In the present case, the prosecutrix (P.W.1) was the only eye witness, whereas remaining witnesses were her husband and brother-in-law to whom, she told the story. According to the prosecutrix (P.W.1) when she was working at the house of Nani Bai, the appellant held her hand and pressed her breasts. On her shouting, he ran away. When Nani Bai came back, the prosecutrix told the entire story to Nani Bai. There are 3 major drawbacks in the story of the prosecutrix. Firstly, all the witnesses which are examined in the case are related to the prosecutrix. Nani Bai was neither examined by the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C, nor she was examined before the trial Court. Secondly, when there was nobody in the house of Nani Bai, except the prosecutrix then, there was nobody to prevent the appellant to commit rape upon the prosecutrix. If a person, enters in the house of someone else with bad intention and if he has courage to do such thing then, it is not possible for that person to run away, if the prosecutrix shouts. If his intention was so weak then, he would not have entered in the house of Nani Bai. The prosecutrix has not shown any reason as to why the appellant went inside the house of Nani Bai to do such crime. Looking to the conduct of the appellant as depicted by the prosecutrix, allegations appear to be unnatural.

Thirdly, the FIR has been lodged with delay of at least 20 hours. The incident took place at 3 p.m. Husband of the prosecutrix came to his house in the evening. When he was suggested that bus service was available to visit Khaknar upto 9 p.m. in the evening, he did not deny the suggestion but, he had shown his ignorance. The prosecutrix and her husband could visit the police station on the same day in the evening to lodge the FIR but, the FIR was lodged on the second day, at about 12 p.m. If the prosecutrix and her brother-in-law went to the police station on the next day morning then, they could reach the police station at about 9 a.m. and FIR could be lodged upto 10 a.m. in the morning but, still it was lodged at 12 O''Clock. If all the aforesaid 3 drawbacks of the case are simultaneously considered then, a doubt is created that the appellant was falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity. The appellant could not get any knowledge that the prosecutrix was available in the house of Nani Bai at the time of incident. If any doubt arises in the case then, benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused. The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellant in a doubtful case.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby allowed by giving the benefit of doubt. Conviction as well as sentence imposed upon the appellant is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charge of offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He would be entitled to get the fine amount back, if he has deposited the same before the trial Court.

The appellant is on bail. His presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged.

A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information and compliance.