Point of Law: Criminal Law – Assault – Appeal against conviction - Court opinion that prosecution has successfully proved guilt of appellant of outraging modesty of prosecutrix. Therefore in given facts and circumstances of case and nature and quality of evidence adduced by prosecution finding of guilt recorded by trial Court being just and proper needs no interference by this Court.

JUDGMENT :

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 04/07/2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Special S.T. No. 67/2015; whereby the appellant Raja Netam stands convicted and sentenced as under:-

2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the date of incident on 28/08/2015 at Gourinagar Rajnandangaon at about 6 AM morning when prosecutrix aged about 16 years was sleeping in her room, appellant/ accused, who is husband of PW-02 Arti Netam, with intent to outrage her modesty caught hold of her hand and arm, removed her clothes and touched her breast. When she raised alarm for help, her paternal aunty (Bua) Aarti Netam (PW-02), her sisters Pooja (PW-04), Kajal (PW-05) and brother Vicky reached to her rescue. The appellant assaulted upon her paternal aunty (Bua) and brother Vicky and also threatened them of life. On the same day Zero FIR is lodged vide Ex. P-1 at Outpost Chikhali by prosecutrix on the basis of which numbered FIR is lodged vide Ex. P-13 at Police Station Kotwali, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) under Sections 354B, 323, 506 of IPC and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Accused was arrested vide Ex. P-2. Spot map is prepared vide Ex. P-5. For the purpose of age of the prosecutrix, her Aadhar Card was seized vide Ex. P-6 and Patwari prepared spot map vide Ex. P-19. Aarti Netam and Vicky Netam were medically examined by PW-07 Sukumari Sahu vide Ex. P-10 and P-11 respectively and she found bruise on right arm of Arti Netam and abrasion over chest as also on right arm of Vicky Netam. The doctor opined that these injuries were simple in nature. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant/accused for offence under Section 354(B), 323, 506 of IPC and under Section 8 the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

3) The Trial Court framed charges against the accused/appellant under Sections 354(B), 354(A)(i), 323(twice) & 506(Part-II) (twice) of I.P.C. and under Sections 8 the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) 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-01 Ramnarayan Singh Dhruv (Sub Inspector), PW-02 Arti Netam (Bua), PW-03 Prosecutrix, PW-04 Pooja Netam, PW-05 Kajal Netam, PW-06 Mahalaxmi Kuldeep (Inspector), PW-07 Sukumari Sahu (Medical Officer), PW-08 Jitendra Vijaywar (Sub-Inspector), PW-09 Rupak Sharma (Inspector) and PW-10 Biruram Netam (Revenue Inspector). 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. He stated the character of his wife Arti Netam is not good, she wants divorce from him, she has engaged his daughters and niece (prosecutrix) in prostitution and due to objection being raised by him, she has falsely implicated him in this case. One defence witness DW-01 Purushottam Manikpuri 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 available on record.