AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed against judgment and sentence dated 31.12.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, (Prevention of Atrocities) Act), Harda in Special Session Case No.35/2013 by which appellant has been convicted for the following offences:
Conviction
Sentence
Imprisonment
Fine if
deposited
In lieu of
U/s 354 of
IPC
R.I. 1 year
1000/-
Addl. Sentence
R.I. 20 days
U/s 354(D)
IPC
R.I. 1 year
1000/-
Addl. Sentence
R.I. 20 days
U/s 3(1)(11)
SC/ST Act
R.I. 1 year
1000/-
Addl. Sentence
R.I. 20 days
It is the case of prosecution that prosecutrix ‘A’ and her sister ‘B’ were residing in front of File Ward Toll, Harda. For taking training of computer, they used to come to Deendayal Library at 09.00 a.m. The incident in question took place on 19.09.2013 and it is alleged that 5 days prior to the incident appellant was stalking the prosecutrix ‘A’ from a place near Hardol Baba Mandir to Library and he was always suggesting that she looks good and therefore, she should marry him. On 19.09.2013 the appellant after chasing the prosecutrix caught hold of her hand and again proposed that she should marry him as he likes her and a threat was also extended that in case if she lodges a report, then she would be abducted. On raising alarm by the prosecutrix and her sister, Pare sir and madam Farzana came out of the Library and informed the brother of the prosecutrix. The incident was also seen by by-passers. The prosecturix lodged the FIR and accordingly, Crime No.298/13 was registered against appellant for offence under Sections 354, 354(D) of IPC and Section 3(1)(11) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The police prepared the spot map and collected the caste certificate of the prosecutrix. The MLC of the prosecturix was obtained. The documents pertaining to computer training which was being taken by prosecutrix and her sister were collected. Appellant was arrested. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing the investigation, the prosecution filed charge sheet against appellant for offence under Sections 354, 354 (D) of IPC and Section 3(1)(11) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The Trial Court by order dated 28.10.2013 framed the charges under Sections 354, 354 (D) of IPC and Section 3(1)(11) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution in order to prove its case examined prosecutrix (P.W.-1), her sister (P.W.-2), mother of prosecutrix (P.W.-3), Smt. Farzana Khan (P.W.-4), Shilpa Sharma, S.I. (P.W.-5), Arun Soni (P.W.-6) and Shri Dilip Kapse (P.W.-7).
The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. Trial Court by impugned judgment dated 31.12.2014 convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 354, 354(D) of IPC and Section 3(1)(11) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and awarded jail sentence as already mentioned above.
Challenging the conviction recorded by Trial Court, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that appellant has been convicted on the basis of interested witnesses. It is further submitted that incident took place on 19.09.2013 and 10 long years have passed, therefore, the jail sentence already undergone by appellant is sufficient to meet out the ends of justice.
Per contra, counsel for State has supported the findings recorded by Trial Court.
Heard learned counsel for parties.
Prosecutrix (P.W.-1) has stated that on 19.09.2013 appellant had caught hold of her right hand, at that time, she was accompanied by her sister. After hearing shouts, teachers from the Library had come out. Her brother was called and accordingly, FIR, Ex.P/1 was lodged. Her medical was got done and spot map, Ex.P/2 was prepared. Her caste certificate is Ex.P/3 which was seized by seizure memo, Ex.P/4. The prosecutrix was cross-examined by appellant. In cross-examination she stated that her training timings were from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. and they used to go by walking. She admitted that prior to the incident she did not know the accused. She left her house at about 8:45 in the morning. She was not having her mobile on the date of incident. Appellant had caught hold of her wrist and it was denied that at the time of incident her sister was inside the Library. She admitted the suggestion that only hearing her shouts teachers from the Library had come out and thereafter, appellant went away and did not say anything. It was denied that appellant and her brother are friends. It was denied that her brother had taken loan from the appellant and since he was not interested in repaying the same, therefore, false FIR has been lodged.
The sister of the prosecutrix (P.W.-2) has also narrated the incident and she has also stated that about 3-4 days prior to the incident appellant was stalking the prosecutrix. On the date of incident appellant had caught hold of hand of the prosecutrix and proposed that he likes her and he would marry her. Teachers from the Library had come out and her brother was called and thereafter, the report was lodged. In her cross-examination, she stated that they were attending the classes from 09.30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. She denied that appellant had caught hold the left hand of prosecutrix. She further admitted the suggestion that when the appellant caught hold of hand of the prosecutrix, this witness as well as prosecutrix (P.W.-1) had raised alarm. She further denied that her brother had taken some loan from the appellant and therefore, appellant has been falsely implicated.
The mother of the prosecutrix (P.W.-3) is hearsay witness, who was informed by proxecutrix and nothing could be elicited from her cross-examination to show that she was a tutored witness.
Smt. Farzana Khan (P.W.-4) has stated that when she was inside the Library, at that time, she heard the noise of shouting. Thereafter, she and Pare sir came out of the Library and found that one boy had caught hold the hand of prosecutrix. Appellant was identified by this witness in the dock. It was further stated that prosecutrix had informed this witness that appellant was stalking her for the last 5 days and was proposing that he likes her and he would marry her. In cross-examination she stated that she is working in Deendayal Library run by Nagal Palika Parishad as a Daily Wager employee. She denied that prosecutrix was already known to her. She clarified that she had seen the prosecutrix in the Library. She claimed that prosecutrix was attending the training classes from 09 a.m. to 10 a.m. She further stated that immediately after the alarm was raised she came out of the Library. She denied that they had seen the appellant running away from the spot. She further claimed that she had seen that prosecutrix was crying and appellant was saying something. She admitted that she could not overhear the conversation between prosecutrix and appellant.
Arun Yogi (P.W.-6) had seized the caste certificate, Ex.P/3 of prosecutrix by seizure memo, Ex.P/4.
Dilip Kapse (P.W.-7) has proved the caste certificate. He has stated that on 01.03.2004 he was working on the post of S.D.O. Revenue, Harda and he had also brought the registration register according to which caste certificate was issued by this witness and it was stated that prosecutrix belongs to Scheduled Caste. Thus, it is clear that appellant had caught hold the hand of the prosecutrix and had proposed that he likes her and he would marry her.
Counsel for appellant could not point any material thing from cross-examination which may lead the evidence of prosecutrix and her sister (P.W.-2) as well as Smt. Farzana Khan (P.W.-4) as unreliable. Smt. Farzana Khan (P.W.-4) is an independent witness. She had specifically stated that prosecutrix was not known to her and she had seen her only in the Library. FIR was lodged promptly and there is no question of any over implication or false implication. The defence suggested by appellant by witness that since brother of prosecutrix had taken loan from him, therefore, he has been falsely implicated has not been proved by him. The suggestion given by appellant to witness was denied. Even in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. appellant had not taken the aforesaid defence.
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of considered opinion that prosecution has successfully established the guilt of appellant. Prosecutrix belongs to Scheduled Caste whereas appellant belongs to unreserved caste. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that appellant had committed the offence for the reason that the prosecutrix belongs to Scheduled Caste. Accordingly, the conviction of appellant for offence under Sections 354, 354(D) of IPC and under Section 3(1)(11) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is hereby affirmed.
It is submitted by counsel for appellant that since appellant has already remained in jail for a period of 12 days during the trial, therefore, appellant may be awarded the jail sentence which has already been undergone by him.
Considered the submission made by counsel for petitioner.
For offence under Section 3(1)(11) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (unamended), minimum sentence of 6 months was provided. Accordingly, jail sentence awarded to the appellant cannot be reduced to the period already undergone by him. As a consequence thereof, prayer for awarding jail sentence already undergone by appellant is hereby rejected.
As a consequence thereof, the judgment and sentence dated 31.12.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, (Prevention of Atrocities) Act), Harda in Special Session Case No.35/13 is hereby affirmed.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of appellant are hereby cancelled. He is directed to immediately surrender before the Trial Court latest by 10.02.2024 for undergoing the jail sentence.
It is made clear that if appellant fails to surrender before the Trial Court by the specified date, then Trial Court shall be free to issue warrant of arrest against appellant to compel him to undergo the jail sentence.
Let a copy of this order alongwith record of Trial Court be sent back for necessary information and compliance.
The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.