RAVI NATH VERMA, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Shri B.K. Goswami learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in G.R. Case No.1 of 1998(A) arising out of Kharsawan P.S. Case No.41 of 1997 holding the sole appellant guilty of offence punishable under Sections 354 and 504 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year on each count and also to pay a fine of Rupees One thousand and in default of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days on each count and further sentenced the appellant under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rupees One thousand only and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. No sentence was passed under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and all sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution case as unfolded during the trial is that while the informant Thuni Kumari Soy was going to grocery shop of Shantanu Mandal at about 10 a.m., the appellant intercepted her near Panchayat Bhawan and offered her for lustful act but she anyhow moved from there silently and when she was coming back, again she was intercepted by this appellant at the same place and the appellant requested her to come for his sexual desire and when the informant protested, the appellant grappled her and assaulted her with Chappal on her head and on back. On hearing the alarm raised by the informant, the local people assembled there. Her family members also came there after hearing her cry whereafter the appellant escaped from the place of occurrence.
(3.) ON the basis of the fardbeyan, the F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation the police submitted charge sheet under Sections 341, 323, 354 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/4 (XIV) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Atrocities Act and since the case was triable by Special Court under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Atrocities Act, the case was committed to the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge. Whereafter the charges were framed against the appellant in the aforesaid Sections. The defence, as it appears from the impugned judgment, was complete denial of the accusation and that the accused is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has stated that he was working as a mason and the informant was also working alongwith him as a Reja (female labourer) under the same contractor but as she was a habitual late comer on duty, she was removed from the job and so he has been falsely implicated in this case. In course of trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. Of them prosecutrix is P.W.1, her mother Randai Kui and brother Mangal Soy are P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively, Dr. Paul, who had examined prosecutrix is P.W.4, P.W.5 is Sadan Soy, P.W.6 is I.O. of the case and P.W.7 is Birsha Soy who was declared hostile.;