Rameshwar Chaube vs The State of Jharkhand

Prashant Kumar, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.04.2003 passed by Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 51 of 2001 whereby and whereunder appellant was convicted under Sections 354 and 323 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence u/s 354 of the I.P.C. and undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence u/s 323 of the I.P.C.

The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.01.2001 at 08:00 a.m. in the morning informant was going for bath to Jojo Gara river. In the way, she was intercepted by the appellant. It is further alleged that appellant fell her on the ground with intention to outrage her modesty. It is then alleged that when the informant protested and raised alarm, appellant assaulted her with stone, due to that she received injuries on her mouth, teeth and lips. Thereafter, appellant fled away. Informant returned to her house and narrated the story to her husband.

On the basis of aforesaid information, Pakur P.S. Case No. 02 of 2001 dated 21.01.2001 instituted under Sections 376/511 and 323 of the I.P.C. and police took up investigation. After completing the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 323 and 376/511 of the I.P.C. It appears that after cognizance, the case committed to the court of Sessions, as the offence under Sections 376/511 of the I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions.

The court below vide order dated 13.09.2001 framed and explained the charges under Sections 376/511 and 323 of the I.P.C. to the appellant, to which appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, prosecution examined altogether eleven witnesses and produced documentary evidence in support of its case. After close of the case of prosecution statement of appellant recorded u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which his defence is of total denial. After considering the evidences available on record, the learned court below convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above, against that the present appeal filed.

While assailing the judgment of the court below, Sri Manish Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in the instant case there is contradiction in the statement of informant with regard to the manner of occurrence. It is submitted that in the fardbeyan, she stated that she also received injury on her chest, but while deposing in court, she stated that she had not received any injury on her chest. Accordingly, it is submitted that the statement of informant is not reliable. It is further submitted that other witnesses are hearsay. Thus, it is submitted that the court below wrongly convicted the appellant.

On the other hand, Sri Ravi Prakash, learned Additional P.P. appearing for the State submits that the statement of informant that she received injury on her mouth and lips found full corroboration from the evidence of Doctor (P.W.-11). It is then submitted that the informant is an illiterate woman coining from village side. It is further submitted that the first information report was instituted on 21.01.2001 and she has been examined in court as a witness on 10.09.2002 i.e. about more than one and half years. Under the said circumstance aforesaid contradiction, pointed out by the appellant, bound to appear in her testimony. Hence, the said contradiction has no bearing on the credibility of P.W.-8. It is submitted that the evidence of P.W.-8 has further find corroboration from the objective finding of the I.O. It is submitted that at the earlier occasion also appellant tried to outrage the modesty of the informant, for that a Panchayati took place. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned judgment, which requires any interference by this Court.

Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case and scrutinized the evidences available on record. Admittedly, P.W.-1 to 7 are hearsay witnesses and they have stated that they received information regarding the occurrence either from the informant or from the villagers. Thus, in the instant case, the entire case rest on the sole testimony of P.W.-8, the informant. The informant (P.W.-8) has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 8:00 a.m. while she was going to take bath in river, she was intercepted by the appellant and he fell her on the ground with an intention to outrage her modesty. She further states that when she protested and raised alarm, the informant assaulted her with stone due to that she received injury on her lips and teeth. It appears from record that on the same day, she was examined by the Doctor (P.W.-11) at 10:00 a.m. The Doctor found lacerated injuries on her upper lips and abrasion on the left elbow. According to doctor, both the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. Thus, I find that the medical evidence also supports the version of P.W.-8. In the instant case, the Investigating Officer also examined as P.W.-9. P.W.-9 deposed that during the investigation, he inspected place of occurrence and in course of that he found some drops of blood on the ground. Thus, the physical finding of the I.O. also supports the version of P.W.-8.

The prosecution witnesses stated that prior to the occurrence at one occasion appellant tried to outrage the modesty of the informant by entering in her house. They further stated that in connection of same a Panchayati took place in the village and in the said Panchayati, appellant apologized and undertake that he will not repeat the incident in future. The prosecution has exhibited the Panchnama, which has been marked as Ext.-II. Thus, appellant appears to be habituated in doing such crime.

After going through the evidence available on record, I find that there are evidences to show that the appellant had tried to outrage the modesty of the informant and when she protested, he assaulted with the stone. Thus, I find no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned judgment of the court below. Thus, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the court below is hereby affirmed.

In the result, appeal is dismissed. Bail bond of appellant is cancelled and he is directed to surrender in the court below to serve out the sentence. Learned court below is also directed to take all coercive steps for his surrender.