The Chhattisgarh High Court, after finding that there was nothing on record to prove that he held the prosecutrix’s hand with bad intention, acquitted a former Sarpanch for offence under Section 354 IPC (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty).
A Single Bench of Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari passed this order while hearing a Criminal Revision filed by Bhanu Singh.
The Revision is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 2.1.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur in Criminal Appeal whereby the Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the applicant for offence under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month.
The prosecution case is that on 21.10.2007, the prosecutrix was returning after celebrating Dussehra Festival along with her friends. When she reached near the primary school, at that time the applicant came from behind and asked for some snacks whereupon the prosecutrix provided some snacks (Namkeen). At that point of time, the applicant caught hold of the right hand of the prosecutrix with intent to outrage her modesty and when she offered resistance, the applicant ran away. After reaching home, the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her parents and lodged the FIR on the next day of the incident i.e 22.10.2007.
The prosecution filed the charge sheet for offence under Sections 354 of the IPC. On the basis of evidence available on record, the trial Judge had convicted the applicant under Sections 354 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo SI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month vide judgment dated 11.5.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal.
Against which the applicant had preferred an Appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District Raipur, who, vide judgment dated 2.1.2012 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Judge and maintained the conviction and sentence imposed upon the applicant.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court, which was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, is bad in law and the facts available on record. Both the Court below failed to appreciate the fact that the applicant had no intention to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix.
There is an old dispute between the parties because of which the applicant has been implicated in a false case, as the applicant had won the election of Sarpanch defeating one Bali Ram, who was supported by the father of the prosecutrix. No independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the applicant.
The Court said that in order to constitute the offence under Section 354 of the IPC, it is necessary that the accused must have used criminal force and he must have an intention to outrage the modesty or knowledge that by his act he may outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix.
The Court observed that,
On close scrutiny of the evidence adduced, it reveals that the prosecutrix has not stated that the applicant caught hold of her hands with bad intention. Niece of the victim, deposes in her cross-examination that she is not aware as to for what reasons the applicant has caught hold of hands of the prosecutrix. Friend of the prosecutrix, has also not stated that the applicant caught hold of hands of the prosecutrix with such intention. On the contrary, the prosecutrix friends and niece of the victim clearly depose that on the date of the incident, they were celebrating Dussehra festival. They also admit in their cross-examination that as per the village custom, normally young people go to the elderly people to seek their blessings.
On the date of the incident, the applicant was Sarpanch and an elderly person in the village, therefore, the prosecutrix along with her father and friend went to meet the applicant, whereupon the applicant demanded snacks from the prosecutrix and also caught her hands.
Considering such facts, it cannot be safely held that the applicant caught hold of hands of the prosecutrix with any bad intention.
The prosecutrix has also admitted in cross-examination that the applicant is not in talking terms with her father. Friend has stated that she is not aware that the father of the prosecutrix and the applicant were not talking to each other prior to the incident. The prosecutrix and her father deny in their cross-examination that as one of their relatives has contested the election against the applicant for the post of Sarpanch and he was defeated in the election, therefore, due to such fractions and to take revenge, a false case has been foisted upon the applicant.
Defence witnesses depose that a close relative of the father of the prosecutrix, has also contested the election against the applicant and the election was won by the applicant. Hence father of the prosecutrix started nurturing enmity and for such reason, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. This fact was not rebutted in cross-examination of the defence witness, the Court noted.
“In view of the aforesaid discussion, it appears that there is some political rivalry and no clear fact is emanating from the record that the applicant with bad intention has caught hold of hands of the prosecutrix. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 354 of the IPC against the applicant”, the Court further observed while allowing the petition.
“Conviction and sentence imposed upon the applicant under Section 354 of the IPC are set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. The applicant is on bail. The bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months as required under Section 437-A of the CrPC. The applicant shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed”, the Court ordered.