MANOJ Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
LAWS(UTN)-2013-5-130
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on May 13,2013

MANOJ Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This appeal preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.08.2001, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, II F.T.C., Dehradun, in Special Sessions Trial No. 04 of 1998, whereby said Court has convicted the accused-appellant Manoj under Section 354 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribed (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. While convicting accused-appellant Manoj, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 354 of IPC. The convict was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,00/- under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Aggrieved against said order of conviction and sentence, present criminal appeal was preferred.
(2.) Informant lodged a report in police station concerned alleging that on 01.08.1995, when he had gone to take timber in the forest and came back at 07:30 P.M., his wife Chetna briefed him that accused Manoj outraged the modesty of their daughter Savita. When the criminal law was set into motion at the instance of the father of the victim, investigation began. After The investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against the appellant Manoj (and Dharmendra alias Babli, non appellant) in respect of offence punishable under Section 354 / 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, a charge was framed against accused Manoj for the self same offences. Prosecution witnesses were examined. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court convicted Manoj in respect of offences complained of against him and sentenced him appropriately. Aggrieved against the same, Manoj preferred present criminal appeal.
(3.) A compounding application CRMA No. 449 of 2013 is filed alongwith affidavits of appellant Manoj and victim Savita Devi stating that the parties have entered into compromise. Victim Savita Devi is present in person in person before the Court, duly identified by her counsel Mr. Tanuj Semwal, Advocate. Savita Devi said that she has amicably settled the dispute with appellant Manoj and she does not wish to proceed against the appellant. Savita Devi also said that she was conscious of the fact that the accused-appellant Manoj was convicted by the court below, but now she is not interested in prosecuting the accused-appellant.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.