Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1560/2005 of TAHIR KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFOREHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAINON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1560 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
TAHIR KHAN S/O HABIB KHAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,R/O PENGWA,TEHSIL GAIRATGANJ, RAISEN (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI ASHOK KUMAR CHAKRAWARTY - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHP.S.GAIRATGANJ, RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI NARENDRA LODHI - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the impugned judgment ofconviction and order of sentence dated 22.07.2005 passed by Special Judge Raisen inSpecial Case No. 89 of 2004, whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted theappellant for commission of offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code andsentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and further directed topay fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 12.02.2004 the prosecutrix had gone toanswer the call of nature at around 6:00 pm in the evening in an agricultural field andwhen she was sitting to ease herself, the present appellant approached and pressed her body inappropriately. When she raised alarm, then her brother Neelesh approached andthereafter the present appellant started quarrelling with the brother of the prosecutrix.The prosecutrix left the place.
3. Initially the charge was framed under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but after the trial, the appellanthas been acquitted of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and he was convictedonly for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded before the trial court and sheentered into the witness box as PW/1. In her examination-in-chief, she supported theprosecution version and duly stated that the appellant was committing the act in termsof Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and when she raised alarm, her brother cameand thereafter there was a fight between her brother and the appellant. It was also statedby her in examination-in-chief that her uncle Jawahar had come on the spot and tookaway her brother for lodging an FIR.
5. In the cross-examination in paragraph 4, the prosecutrix stated that it is true tosay that two days prior to the incident, her brother was being beaten by the presentappellant and she also admitted that she lodged the report only on account of the fightbetween her brother and the appellant. However, later on, in succeeding paragraphs ofher cross-examination, she supported the prosecution version and also stated that theaccused/appellant always does this. The trial court, in paragraph 11 of the judgmentunder appeal, has assigned meaning to the ambiguous sentence of the prosecutrix insaying that the accused always does this. The trial court has assigned meanaing to thesentence that by the prosecutrix saying that the accused always does this, it can beinferred that the accused always molest the modesty of the prosecutrix. This meaningof the said ambiguous sentence that the accused/appellant always does this, has beenascribed by the trial court, which does not appear to be proper looking to the plainlanguage of the said sentence.
6. The deposition was continuing on the point of the quarrel between the brother ofthe prosecutrix and the appellant and while answering the question as to quarrel between her brother and the appellant, the prosecutrix stated ambiguous sentence that accusedalways does this. Meaning could also be that the accused always quarrels with thebrother of the prosecutrix.
7. Further, the incident is said to have occurred on 12.02.2004 while an FIR has beenlodged on 20.02.2004. The distance between the police station and the residence of theprosecutrix is stated to be 8 km. No explanation for this delayed lodging of the FIR hasbeen offered by the prosecution.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts, in the opinion of this Court, it is a fit case wherebenefit of doubt could have been extended to the appellant. Looking to the deposition incross-examination of the prosecutrix, the conclusion drawn by the trial court inupholding the guilt of the appellant cannot be sustained.
9. Consequently, by giving the benefit of doubt, the present appeal is allowed. Theconviction of the appellant under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. Heis acquitted of the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
10. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, if any, are discharged.
11. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court record alongwithcopy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for information and necessarycompliance.
sj
(VIVEK JAIN)JUDGE