Bharat Carpanter vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Applicant has filed this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the Appellate Court impugned

judgment dated 11.05.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 54/2018, by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Bijawar, District Chhatarpur whereby,

confirmed the conviction and sentence against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 354 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 100/- with default stipulation. In Criminal Case No. 390/2015 vide judgment dated

11.01.2018 passed by the Court of J.M.F.C., Bijawar, District Chhatarpur.

Facts giving rise to this revision, in short, are that prosecutrix who is the resident of Village Dongra Purwa, Police Station Satai, District Chhatarpur

was going to her village Chhatarpur alighted at Bhaira joint Tiggada wherefrom she started to go to her village Dongra Purwa by foot. The applicant is

also resident of the same village Dongra, went along with prosecutrix by bus and also alighted at Bhaira joint for going to his village. He was along

with prosecutrix, when both were walking towards the native place by foot and one Auto was going to the village. The prosecutrix stopped the Auto

and tried to ride on the Auto, but applicant persuaded that why she is spending Rs.5/- as a fare, village is not far away we should go on foot. Then,

prosecutrix dropped the idea and went along with applicant. When applicant found her alone, he caught hold her and started pressing her breast, then

prosecutrix (P.W.1) shouted, on hearing shouting noise, Biharilal (P.W.2) and Ramadheen Patel (P.W.5) reached to the spot. then applicant fled away

from the spot. Prosecutrix on reaching at home, narrated the whole ordeal to her father Gouri Shankar Patel (P.W.3) and mother Champa Bai

(P.W.4) went along with prosecutrix at Police Station Satai and lodged an F.I.R. there. The matter investigated by the S.K. Dubey (P.W.6), the then

A.S.I. posted at Police Station Satai.

After investigation charge-sheet has been filed before the Court of J.M.F.C., Bijawar, District Chhatarpur, trial Court framed the charge under

Section 341 of I.P.C. and Section 354 of I.P.C. against the applicant the abjured the guilt prosecution examined the witnesses. During examination of

accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The applicant took the defence that buffaloes of the prosecutrix entered into his agricultural field. He collected

all the buffaloes and sent those in Kanji House. On account of that rivalry, the father of the prosecutrix threatened the applicant that he will implicate

the applicant in a false case. Resultantly, applicant has been implicated in the matter. In his defence, the applicant examined Heera Rajak as D.W.1.

Learned trial Court after hearing both parties delivered the judgment on 10.02.2018 found proved charges against the applicant and convicted the

applicant under Section 341 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced him to deposit Rs.500/-, under Section 354 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.100/- with default stipulation. Applicant being aggrieved by conviction and sentenced preferred an

appeal before Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Bijawar, District Chhatarpur registered as a Criminal Appeal No. 54/2018. Learned appellate Court after

hearing both parties delivered the judgment on 11.05.2019, affirmed the conviction and sentence passed under Section 354 of I.P.C. and set-aside the

conviction and sentence passed under Section 341 of IPC.

Being aggrieved by that judgment dated 11.05.2019 the applicant preferred this criminal revision on the ground that both Courts below have not

appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. The witnesses reached at the place of the incident soon after the incident, Biharilal (P.W.2) and

Ramadheen Patel (P.W.5), have not supported the version of the prosecutrix and case of prosecution. The prosecution completely failed to prove the

every circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, benefit of doubt ought to have been granted in favour of the applicant. Learned both Courts

have not appreciated the version of the defence witnesses, hence of findings of conviction and sentence are bad in law, prays to set-aside the

conviction and sentence and acquitted the applicant of the charge.

Learned Panel Lawyer appeared on behalf of the respondent/State has vehemently opposed the revision and prays for dismissal of this revision.

Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of both the Court below. Prosecutrix (P.W.1) categorically stated that

applicant Bharat is the villager of his village Dongra Purwa she is well-known to him, he was with her in the bus. When she got down from the bus at

the joint of Bhaira, the applicant also got down there for going to his village Dongra Purwa and she categorically stated that she along with the

applicant went to move her village by foot. One auto came over there then she told to applicant that she will go by auto. Applicant suggested that why

she spent money, village is not far away from here. Let us go by foot. Then prosecutrix instead of riding in auto went to village by foot along with

applicant. She further stated that on the way the applicant was suddenly caught hold her and pressed her breast then she shouted, the auto stopped at

some distance and Ramadheen Patel and Biharilal (P.W.2) came on the spot, then applicant fled away from the spot. She narrated the story and she

lodged the report Exhibit P.1 at Police Station Satai. In para 5, she categorically stated that Biharilal (P.W.2) is her uncle was also along with her. She

also stated that wife of the Biharilal (P.W.2) aunty was also along with Biharilal. Both were going to the village Dongra by auto, Biharilal (P.W.2)

asked her to get into the auto but she did not ride the auto because applicant stated her that why she is spending the money, let us go by foot village

then she went to village on foot. Biharilal (P.W.2) in his statement did not state anything against the applicant.

As per the version of the prosecutrix, Biharilal (P.W.2) is her uncle, he was with his wife and both were along with the prosecutrix, but Biharilal

(P.W.2) not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. He categorically admitted that on the date of the incident, he went for treatment

of his wife and he was returning along with wife by Tempo to his village Dongra. In para 3 of his statement, he admitted that prosecutrix is a niece of

him. He hired a private taxi in Satai for going to the village Dongra because his wife was along with him. The prosecutrix was also going to the village

in Taxi along with him. He categorically admitted that on the way, the applicant Bharat met him but he did not do anything against the prosecutrix and

categorically admitted that buffaloes of the prosecutrix entered into the Agricultural Field of the applicant, for that rivalry, the prosecutrix falsely

implicated the applicant. Heera (D.W.1) also stated that buffaloes of father of the prosecutrix entered into the Agricultural Field of the applicant and

applicant collected that buffloes and sent those in the Kanji House. On that account, dispute arose between the applicant and Gouri Shankar Patel

(P.W.3) and Gouri Shankar Patel (P.W.3) threatened that he will learn the lesson to the applicant which would be memorable and after that he

managed to lodge report against the applicant by his daughter. Ramadheen Patel (P.W.5) not supported the version of the prosecutrix. As per the

prosecution, it is a witness who reached on the spot just after the incident, his evidence is very much relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, but

this witness has not supported the statement of the prosecutrix as well as the case of the prosecution. Gouri Shankar Patel (P.W.3) the father of the

prosecutrix and Champa Bai (P.W.4) the mother of the prosecutrix both were not present on the spot they were at home. at the time of the incident.

The prosecutrix narrated the story to them.

On perusal of the statement of prosecutrix, at the time of the incident the age of the prosecutrix was 21 years old not a minor girl. She went to the

Chhatarpur alone and when she returned from the Chhatarpur to her village, the applicant was along with her, when she dropped at Bhaira joint, she

went along with the applicant to the village on foot. Her uncle Biharilal (P.W.2) was also along with prosecutrix, he was with his wife hired a Taxi for

going to his village prosecutrix is the niece of the Biharilal (P.W.2). As per the version of the prosecutrix, Biharilal (P.W.2) asked her to come in Taxi,

but instead of going by Taxi to village she preferred to go by foot, on suggestion of the applicant. The prosecutrix, in para 4, categorically stated that at

the time of the incident, it was a rainy season and it was a deep evening, in spite of that she was not riding in the auto. As per the statement of

Biharilal (P.W.2) who is the uncle of the prosecutrix categorically stated that he hired a Auto to go to village. Prosecutrix was offered to go by Auto.

She nowhere stated that Auto Driver asked for the fare. There is a clear evidence on record that applicant and family of the prosecutrix having a

strained relation. On account of dispute of buffaloes why the prosecutrix preferred to go on foot along with applicant not accompanying his uncle

Biharilal (P.W.2). On shouting the uncle who was in auto stopped the auto rushed to the spot. This fact goes to show that auto was not very far from

the place of incident and the witness immediately reached on the spot. Biharilal (P.W.2) as well as auto driver Ramadheen Patel (P.W.5) not

supported the version of prosecutrix. This fact goes to show that version of prosecutrix is not wholly reliable, there was rivalry between the father of

the prosecutrix and the applicant. The version of the prosecutrix is not having a ring of truth. There was inimical relations between the applicant and

the prosecutrix. The father of the prosecutrix threatened the applicant to implicate in a some false case. The defence taken by the applicant is well

substantiate by the evidence of Heera Rajak (D.W.1) and Biharilal (P.W.2) who is the near relative of the prosecutrix.

Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the prosecution fails to prove the case against the applicant beyond doubt. The benefit of

doubt must be extended to the accused. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that both Court below failed to extend doubt in

favour of the applicant, and grossly erred in relying on the statement of the prosecutrix.

On the basis of the foregoing discussions, this Court finds that both Court erred in convicting the applicant under Section 354 of I.P.C. and

sentenced him for that offence. The prosecution failed to prove charge against the applicant beyond doubt under Section 354 of I.P.C., thus, by

extending the benefit of doubt in favour of applicant this Court finds that conviction of the applicant under Section 354 of IPC deserves to be set-aside.

Accordingly, this revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the both the Court below is hereby set-

aside and the applicant acquitted of the charge under Section 354 of I.P.C. The applicant is in jail, he be released and set free forthwith, if not required

in any other case.

Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court along with the record.