The court upheld the conviction under IPC Sections 354 and 448 while allowing probation, affirming that delay in FIR lodging was adequately explained and enmity did not undermine credible testimony.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

1. The petitioner faced the trial for the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 354 /448/506 of the IPC before the learned S.D.J.M., Rairangpur in G.R. Case No.123 of 2005 (Trial Case No.509 of 2005). After conclusion of trial, while being acquitted of the charge under Section 506 of the , the petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 448 and Section 354 of the . The learned trial Court accordingly sentenced the accused-petitioner to undergo S.I. for a period of six months for the offence under of the and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for 15 days for the offence under Section 448 of the vide order dated 11.04.2011. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2011 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangpur. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order of the learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 01.08.2011. Being aggrieved with the said confirming judgment and order, the petitioner preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 16.04.2005 at about 8.30 A.M. in village Maghua, while the informant Rina Giri was feeding her infant son in her house, the accused-petitioner came and snatched her son from her lap and dragged the informant into a room. The informant tried to save herself, but the accused managed to pin her to the ground and tore her blouse and lifted her saree and saya with a view to outrage her modesty. In order to save herself, the informant assaulted the accused-petitioner by means of a steel glass on his face, as a result of which, the accused left her but threatened to kill her if she discloses the incident to anyone and fled away from the spot. Thereafter, the sister-in- law of the informant, having returned home, the informant narrated the incident before her and both of them went to the house of the accused- petitioner. But, on the way, they saw the accused going on a bicycle. Thereafter, the informant and her sister-in-law narrated the incident before the parents and other family members of the accused, but they abused them and threatened them with dire consequences, if the matter was not hushed up. The matter was reported before the Tiring Police Station after the return of the husband of the informant from Bangalore, where he was working.

On the basis of such allegation, an F.I.R. was lodged with Tiring P.S. Case No.21/2005, and charge sheet was submitted against the accused-petitioner for the offences under Sections 448 /354/506 of the I.P.C. The petitioner was charged and put to trial for the said offences.

3. To bring home charges, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses to establish the case against the petitioner and exhibited four documents. P.W.1 was the informant and victim; whereas P.W.2 was the sister-in-law of the informant, who was examined by the prosecution as the post-occurrence witness to whom the victim had first narrated the incident. P.Ws.4 & 5 were the seizure witnesses; whereas P.W.10 was the I.O. of the case.

4. P.W.1 has verbatim narrated the incident as mentioned in the F.I.R. Her version also corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2, the sister-in-law, who although was a post-occurrence witness, but the victim had narrated the incident to the said witness immediately after it happened. Therefore, the learned trial Court believed the versions of P.Ws.1 & 2 being the credible witnesses, those who have been unshaken, rather sustained the lengthy c