- (1.) Being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 22.05.2000 in Sessions Trial No.100/1999, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 354 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 5,000/, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, the present appeal was filed. FACTS:
(2.) In brief, it is the case of the prosecution that the appellantaccused was residing as tenant in the house of PW6 Lilabai Jivtode. The deceased Ku. Sangita with her parents was residing abutting the house of Lilabai and, in fact, the ingress and egress of the deceased and her family members was from the courtyard of the house of PW6Lilabai. On 26.02.1999, PW4 Haridas, father of the deceased, had gone to the field for some work while her mother Chandrabhaga i.e. the wife of PW4Haridas was sitting at the house of one Hengde. At about 9.00 p.m. Sangita was returning after answering the nature's call and was passing through the courtyard of Lilabai, accused caught hold of breasts of Ku. Sangita. Therefore, Ku. Sangita shouted and immediately her mother Chandrabhaga went to the spot to find her weeping. Chandrabhaga, her mother then abused the appellant. People assembled at the spot. Thereafer, the accused ran away from the spot. In the morning of 22.02.1999, PW4 Haridas returned to the house. Chandrabhaga narrated the entire incident to her husband on which he stated that he will make enquiry before coming to any conclusion. The deceased Ku. Sangita came back from the School. At that time her parents had been to the fields. She consumed poison and committed suicide. Report wad lodged by complainant Haridas on which accidental death was registered. During investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded, chargesheet was filed, the trial was held evidence was recorded, the learned trial Judge ultimately concluded that no offence of abetment was proved but offence under Section 354 of the IPC was proved. Therefore, he recorded order of conviction accordingly. ARGUMENTS:
(3.) Mr. Naik, Learned Counsel For The Appellant, Submitted that there is no direct evidence insofar as the offence under Section 354 of the IPC is concerned. Even her mother Chandrabhaga who was sitting at a distance of 56 feet from the spot of incident did not see the incident proper and claims that she had heard shouts only and then Ku. Sangita told the incident to her. Similar is the case with PW6Lilabai. These are the only two women witnesses who claimed to have heard what Ku. Sangita told them. Learned counsel for the appellant then argued that in the crossexamination, it has been admitted by PW6Lilabai that family members of the accused were also present on the spot, obviously because the appellant, being the tenant of PW6Lilabai, was bound to be present on the courtyard. According to the learned counsel, it was highly impossible that such an incident could take place in presence of the family members of the appellant. He then submitted that at any rate, going to the root of the matter, learned trial Judge took assistance of Section 6 and 8 of the Evidence Act, which is not at all applicable and hearsay evidence cannot be believed to record an order of conviction. At any rate, according to him, if Exh.16 is seen, the same was lodged after the incident of assault that is the one that was narrated by deceased Ku. Sangita. But in spite of being informed the same to PW4Haridas and he having found his daughter committing suicide, Exh.16 does not say a word about the cause of commission of suicide namely; the alleged incident of outraging the modesty. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, after lodging the FIR, a story was created in order to implicate the appellant in an offence for which conviction has been recorded. He, therefore, submitted that there is no other evidence to convict the appellant and the conviction is on the basis of figment of imagination. He, therefore, prayed for acquittal of the appellant. In support of his submissions, Mr. Naik, learned counsel for the appellant relied on judgment in Kashi Nath Panday vs Emperor, 1942 AIR(Cal) 214.;