Point of Law: Criminal Law - Offence of Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty - Appeal against conviction - Evidence of prosecutrix is also corroborated by PW-4 Dr. who examined her medically and found 3 cm x 5 cm abrasion on her lower lip and pain on her neck and chest.

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, J.

1. This appeal is filed under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.08.2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 11/2017, whereby the appellant Ramchandra Kewat stands convicted and sentenced as under:-

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the date of incident on 05.11.2016 at village Dhanora the prosecutrix, aged about 30 years, was sleeping in her home alongwith her children. At about 1 AM in the night, she woke up to attend the call of nature and after attending the same, while she was in her courtyard, the accused appellant entered her home by committing house trespass at night, caught hold of her, pressed her mouth and in order to outrage her modesty, removed her sari and petticoat, and threw her on the ground. The prosecutrix kicked the appellant and raised hue and cry for help. Hearing the same, her daughter Roshni reached there and pulled the appellant. However, the accused fled from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, her neighbours Tihauru Gond, Bhawan Gond and her mother Sonabai and father Baldev reached the place of occurrence, and she informed them about the incident. On the same day FIR is lodged vide Ex.P-2 by victim/complainant. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-1, caste certificate of the prosecutrix was seized vide Ex.P-5 and the prosecutrix was medically examined by PW-4 Dr. Harshvardhan Mehar vide Ex.P-6 who noticed abrasion on lower lip of size 3 cm x 5 cm, pain on back of neck and back of chest. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant/accused for offence under Section 456, 354 and 323 of IPC and under Sections 3 (1)(11)(12) of the SCST Act.

3. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused/appellant under Sections 457, 354 and 323 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3 (1) (b-i)(b-ii) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The accused/appellant denied the charges and prayed for trial.

4. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses namely PW-1 Baldev, PW-2 Roshni, PW-3 Prosecutrix, PW-4 Dr. Harshwardhan (Medical Officer), PW-5 Sunita Nag (Sub-Inspector), PW-6 Sona Bai (Mother of Prosecutrix), PW-7 Narendra Kumar Betal (SDO O/o Police), PW-8 J.K. Verma (Assistant Sub-Inspector), PW-9 Bhawan Singh and PW-10 Shankar Dayal Mishra (Tehsildar). The statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded innocence and false implication. No defence witness was examined by the accused in his defence.

5. Learned Trial Court considering the material available on record by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as mentioned in Para 1 of this judgment.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the overall evidence availa