Judgment:
Criminal Appeal No.2330/97 21.03.13.
Shri S.K.Gangrade, learned counsel for appellant.
Shri Sameer Chile, learned GA for State.
Heard finally.
This is an appeal preferred by appellant Mahadev feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 18th October, 1997, delivered by the then Special Judge, Balaghat in Special Criminal Case No.42/96 in which appellant has been convicted for alleged offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”.) and sentenced to R.I.for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine appellant to further undergo R.I.for three months.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised limited submission about the finding of conviction.
He submits that there is nothing in the statement of prosecutrix (PW.1) that offence of outraging the modesty was committed on the ground of caste as prosecutrix belong to scheduled caste and appellant is a member of upper caste.
His submission is that prosecutrix has stated her caste and caste of appellant only, and has not uttered even a single word about the manner in which the offence was committed due to her caste.
His further submission is that in her cross-examination prosecutrix admitted that there was transaction of money and as she was not willing to return back the money, therefore, the incident took place.
Counsel submits that age of the prosecutrix was 2 also 42 years at the time of incident.
He submits that case of outraging the modesty of a woman, that too on the ground of caste is not there.
Learned GA appearing for the State submits that from the statement of prosecutrix (PW.1) which has been supported by lodging of prompt report, it is very much clear that prosecutrix was assaulted sexually.
From perusal of statement of prosecutrix (PW.1) and Sonki Bai (PW.2).it seems that the appellant assaulted the prosecutrix and outraged her modesty, however, it appears that the incident did not take place on the ground of caste of prosecutrix.
At last, learned counsel appearing for appellant submits that at the most a case under Section 354 IPC may be there.
He submits that appellant was 42 years old at the time of incident, he is about 60 years old at present, he is facing trial since 1996 and he remained in custody for about three days.
Counsel submits that appellant has already deposited the fine amount of Rs.1000/-.
He has already suffered mental agony and financial loss for the last 17 yeaRs.He submits that appellant may be acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act , and in case this Court finds him guilty under Section 354 of IPC, then he may be convicted and sentenced under Section 354 IPC for the period already undergone by him.
Learned GA appearing for State submits that in case appellant is convicted and sentenced under Section 354 IPC, then heavy fine may be imposed on him. Therefore, appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act, instead he is convicted under Section 354 of IPC for assaulting or using criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, and sentenced for the period already undergone by him with a further fine of Rs.1,500/- (Rs.One Thousand Five Hundred Only) which shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of three months from today before the concerned trial Court. Appellant is on bail. In case appellant deposits the fine amount of Rs.1,500/- within the aforesaid period, his bail bonds/personal bonds shall remain discharged and he need not surrender. If appellant does not deposit the fine amount of Rs.1,500/- within the aforesaid period, then he is required to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In case the fine amount of Rs.1,500/- is deposited by appellant Mahadev, it shall be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part to the aforesaid extent. (M.A.Siddiqui) Judge. Jk. 3