Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Conviction Sentence Under Section 354 of the Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and Indian Penal Code fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation Under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and Act of 1989 fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix (PW1) is a member of the Scheduled Tribe and is dumb. On 25.4.2001 at about 6:00 a.m., she had gone to the agricultural field to pick up Mahua flowers. At that time, the Appellant was sitting nearby under a tree. It is alleged that he, with an intent to outrage and humiliate the prosecutrix, caught hold of her breast. She came out of his clutches, ran away from there and came back to her house. She told about the incident to her mother Bhagwati (PW2). A written report (Ex.P1) was submitted by Bhagwati. On the basis of Ex.P1, First Information Report (Ex.P2) was registered. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989. Charges were framed against him under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)

6. On the other hand, Learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

8. The prosecutrix (PW1) is dumb. As per her statement recorded by the Trial Court, the Appellant gagged her mouth, caught her breast, also caught her private part and tried to remove her underwear. Thereafter, she ran away, went to her house and told about the incident to her mother.

10. Hinjaram (PW3) has stated that Bhagwati (PW2) had come to his house and told about the incident. Thereafter, a village meeting took place in which he had asked the prosecutrix about the incident. The prosecutrix told by hints that the Appellant had caught her and pressed her breast. She had come out of his clutches and run away from there and come back to her house.

11. Somlal (PW4) has also supported the statement of Hinjaram (PW3). He has also stated that the prosecutrix had told him that the Appellant had caught her and pressed her breast.

13. On a minute examination of the above evidence, it is clear that the Appellant had caught the prosecutrix in the field with an intent to outrage her modesty and also caught her breast. The prosecutrix has remained firm during her cross-examination and her statement is also supported by Bhagwati (PW2), Hinjaram (PW3) and Somlal (PW4).

14. From the above, the offence alleged under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is proved against the Appellant and, therefore, he has rightly been convicted thereunder by the Trial Court.