The importance of proving the first information report and providing satisfactory explanations for any delay in lodging the report in cases involving offences against modesty.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Sahoo, J.

The petitioner Gokula Naik faced trial in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Loisingha in G.R. Case No.637 of 1993 (T.R. No. 112 of 1994) for offences punishable under sections 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 02.03.1995 acquitted the petitioner of the charge under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code but found him guilty under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-(rupees one thousand), in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months more.

The petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of Session which was heard by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balangir in Criminal Appeal No.36/25 of 1995-96 and the learned Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 15.01.1999 upheld the conviction of the petitioner under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, however, reduced the custodial sentence from rigorous imprisonment for six months to three months, while confirming amount of fine imposed by the learned Trial Court.

2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report lodged by the victim “T” is that on 04.11.1993 in the afternoon while she had been to take bath to the village canal, at an isolated place, the petitioner getting opportunity caught hold of the right hand of the victim and when the victim protested the petitioner, the later squeezed her breast. The victim shouted which drew the attention of other persons who were working in the nearby field and those persons came and rescued the victim from the petitioner. When the elder brother of the victim came to the spot, the petitioner fled away and the victim complained before the village Panch for settlement of the dispute for which she could not lodge the F.I.R. promptly.

On receipt of the written report presented by the victim at Salebhata outpost, A.S.I. of Police Pitambara Paramguru (P.W.6) made a station diary entry and as the report revealed a cognizable case under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, he took up preliminary steps of investigation and sent to the report to the Officer in charge, Loisingha Police Station for registration of the formal F.I.R. The Officer in charge, Loisingha Police Station received the report on 19.11.1993 and registered Loisingha P.S. Case No. 115 of 1993 under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was entrusted to P.W.6 for investigation, who examined the informant and his brother on 19.11.1993, visited the spot and examined more witnesses and after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet on 19.12.1993 under sections 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

On 23.3.1994, the learned Trial Court explained the particulars of the offences under sections 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code to the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. During course of trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses.

P.W.1 is the victim and she stated about the occurrence.

P.W.2 Dullava Sahu is the brother of the victim and he is a post occurrence witness who stated that the matter was not settled before the village Panch for which after ten days of the occurrence, the matter was reported before Police.

P.W.3 Bhubane Behera and P.W.4 Markanda Behera are the eye witnesses to the occurrence.

P.W.5 Gopinath Behera stated to have seen the petitioner fleeing away from the spot. He further stated that the village Panch was called to settle the dispute.

P.W.6 Pitambara Paramguru is the Investigating Officer.

4. The defence plea of the petitioner was one of denial and it was pleaded that there was dispute between the family of the petitioner and family of the victim for which the case has been foisted.

One witness namely Biranchi Mahakud was examined on behalf of the defence who stated that P.Ws.2 to 5 were not pulling on well with the petitioner.

5. The learned Tria