ROHIT B.DEO,J. - (1.) The appellant is assailing the judgment dated 01.01.2018 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Special (Atro) Case 6 of 2011 whereby the appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to payment of fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The accused is acquitted of offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (Atrocities Act).
(2.) The prosecution case:- [2.1] The informant (PW-1) lodged complaint dated 12.11.2010 with the village Tanta Mukti Samiti (Dispute Resolution Committee) alleging that the accused outraged her modesty at 09:00 a.m. on 11.11.2010. [2.2] The gist of the complaint is that the informant was proceeding for crop harvesting when the accused accosted her near the agricultural field of Murlidhar Gedam and demanded sexual favour. The accused held the informant by the waist and attempted to bring her down on the ground. The informant tried to resist and the accused snatched her sickle and threatened the informant of bodily harm. The accused further threatened her with a surkuda (a stick with a sharp object affixed). [2.3] The President of the Tanta Mukti Samiti forwarded the report to the Bramhapuri Police Station on 15.11.2010, on the basis of which offence punishable under Section 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(xi) of the Atrocities Act was registered against the accused vide printed FIR Exh.23. [2.4] Investigation ensued, the Investigating Officer PW-10 Rajendra Shete directed the informant to produce the copy of the caste certificate which she duly produced. PW-10 Rajendra Shete has deposed that Crime 165 of 2010 was registered against the accused after the informant produced the caste certificate. In view of the registration of offence under the Atrocities Act special report was submitted to S.D.P.O. (Exh.55) and the major part of the investigation was handled by PW-11 Prakash Harmalkar who visited the spot of the incident on 25.11.2010 and recorded the statement of the witnesses on 25.11.2010 and on 24.12.2010. The charge-sheet is filed by PW-11 Prakash Harmalkar in the Special Court. [2.5] The learned Sessions Judge framed charge (Exh.10) against the accused under Section 354 , 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989. The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried in accordance with law. The defence of the accused is of total denial and false implication. [2.6] The prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses. PW-1 is the informant. PW-2 Shantabai Uike is the mother-in-law of the informant. These are the material witnesses from the perspective of the prosecution since the other witnesses who are examined as eye witnesses namely Lata Ashok Bhaisare (PW-8) and Sunita Sunil Surpam (PW-9) have not supported the prosecution, although part of the evidence of Sunita Surpam is found to be of corroborative value. [2.7] The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the accused as aforestated.
(3.) Shri Morande, the learned counsel for the accused would submit that the first information report is lodged belatedly which creates serious doubt as regards the prosecution version. The next submission is that the defence of false implication is probablized on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. My attention is invited to the admission in the cross-examination of the mother-in-law of the informant which is to the effect that the wife of the accused leveled false allegations and defamed the informant. Shri Morande would emphasize that the material witnesses have not supported the prosecution and that it would not be safe to base the conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of the informant. Per contra, the learned APP would submit that the delay in lodging the first information report, assuming that the report is lodged belatedly, is satisfactorily explained. The learned APP would invite my attention to the settled position of law that in cases of sexual assault the delay in lodging the first information report is not necessarily fatal and the court must be alive to the sensitivities and sensibilities of the victim and the ground reality and more often than not the victim is reluctant to approach the police. The learned APP would emphasize that a victim of sexual offence is not an accomplice and therefore, if the evidence of the victim is found reliable no corroboration need be sought.;