Raju Kumar and Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Pritinker Diwaker, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2.7.1994 passed by Special Judge, Ambikapur, in Special Criminal Case No. 65/1991 convicting the accused/appellants for the offences punishable u/s 448 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(XI) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short "the Act") and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months u/s 448 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs. 200, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month u/s 3(1)(XI) of the Act.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11.5.1991 FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-1) alleging that on 10.5.1991 when she along with her friends was doing rehearsal for dance at Anganbadi Centre, Goaptu, accused/appellants along with others got inside and started dragging her out.

So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution has examined 07 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case.

After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / appellants for the offences as mentioned above. By the same judgment, other accused persons namely Manoj Kumar and Ajay Kumar have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned.

Counsel for the appellants submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, the offences u/s 448 IPC and 3(1)(xi) of the Act, are not made out against the accused/appellants. She submits that none of the witnesses has stated that the accused/appellants had caught hold of the prosecutrix and dragged her out with intent to outrage her modesty. She submits that at the relevant time number of villagers including the accused/appellants were present on the spot where the prosecutrix along with her friends was doing rehearsal for dance.

On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the findings recorded by the Court below are based on the evidence available on record and therefore no interference with the same is called for.

Prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated in her Court statement that when she was doing rehearsal for dance along with her friends, all the accused persons had made an entry thereto and after catching hold of her hand dragged her out. She has further stated that while accused persons were dragging her out by her hand, her bangles had been broken and she had sustained injuries. In the cross examination this witness has admitted that number of other villagers were also present on the spot for watching rehearsal. She has stated that there was some dispute between appellant Raju and one Sunit which ultimately culminated into a fight as a result of which accused Raju had sustained head injury. Similar is the statement of Ranjita (PW- 2). She has stated that when rehearsal for the dance was going on number of little children were present there. Meanwhile, accused/appellants came there and by catching hold of the hand of the prosecutrix dragged her out. On hue and cry being raised by this witness and other children as well, number of villagers assembled there and as a result of the free fight between them, Ajit and Sunit sustained injuries. Mariyam Tirki (PW-3) has stated in her evidence that while the accused/appellants started dragging the prosecutrix by her hand, her bangles were broken. Ajeet Kujur (PW-4) has also made almost similar statement. He however has admitted that there was some dispute between him and accused/appellant Raju and at that time number of persons were present on the spot. Sunil (PW-5) has simply stated that there was some dispute between his brother and the persons belonging to the other group.

Thus none of the witnesses has stated that the hand of the prosecutrix was caught hold of by the accused/appellants with intent to outrage her modesty. All the witnesses have stated that there was some dispute between the two groups and the witnesses including the prosecutrix had tried to intervene. Moreover, the prosecution has not been able to establish by adducing any documentary evidence that the prosecutrix belongs to scheduled tribe community. The act attributed to the accused/appellants does not bring the provisions of Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act into operation for the reason that entire evidence led by the prosecution does not indicate that the prosecutrix belongs to scheduled tribe category as alleged and that they had assaulted her or used any force against her with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty. Similarly, from the evidence of the witnesses including the prosecutrix it is clear that the accused/appellants were already present on the spot for watching the rehearsal for dance being performed by the prosecutrix and her batch mates where some altercation between two groups ensued and stampede followed. It is not that they had entered the house of the prosecutrix with some particular object in their mind. Thus, on the basis of the material collected by the prosecution, the accused/appellants cannot be convicted even u/s 448 IPC.

After going through the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The findings of the Court below convicting and sentencing the accused/appellants as mentioned above being based on no evidence, are liable to be struck down.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 2.7.1994 is hereby set aside. Accused/appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.