Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 883 (MP)

Ashok Kol v. State of M. P.

2004-11-02

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2004
JUDGMENT The applicant has knocked the door of this Court by preferring a revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court convicting him for the offence punishable under section 354, IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment of one month. No exhaustive statements of facts are necessary for the disposal of this revision. Suffice it to state that in the night of the fateful date, according to the case of the prosecution, the applicant entered inside a khalihan where the prosecutrix was sleeping and just to outrage her modesty, removed quilt as wel1 as sari of the prosecutrix. According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix screamed, as a result of which Ramswaroop arrived at the spot. On the next day, i.e., 15.1.1999, FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix. On lodging of the FIR, the criminal law was triggered off and the prosecution agency investigated the matter and a charge-sheet was submitted. The trial Court, on bare perusal of the charge-sheet, framed a charge punishable under section 354, IPC against the applicant. Needless to emphasize, the applicant denied the charge and requested for trial. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses and placed Exs. P-1 and P-2, the documents on record. After scrutinizing the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the applicant did commit the offence for which he was charged and eventually convicted him and passed the sentence which I have mentioned hereinabove. An appeal preferred by applicant was also dismissed by the impugned judgment. Hence this revision. In this revision Shri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, has submitted that if the entire case of the prosecution is considered in toto, no offence is made out. In this regard the learned counsel has invited my attention to the testimony of the prosecutrix. On the other hand, Shri Sudesh Verma, learned Government Advocate, submits that the two Courts below have assigned cogent reasons for convicting the applicant and, therefore, this revision be dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that this revision deserves to be al1owed. On the other hand, Shri Sudesh Verma, learned Government Advocate, submits that the two Courts below have assigned cogent reasons for convicting the applicant and, therefore, this revision be dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that this revision deserves to be al1owed. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited my attention to the testimony of the prosecutrix and submitted that if the evidence of the prosecutrix is considered in proper perspective, it would reveal that no offence is made out so as to attract the provision of section 354, IPC. In this regard it would be apposite to re-write that portion of the testimony of the prosecutrix which reads thus: Þ 1- eSa gkftj vnkyr vfHk;qDr dks tkurh gw¡A vkt ls yxHkx nks lky igys dh ?kVuk gSA jkr ds le; eS vius [ksr esa] ftlesa xsgw¡ cks;k gqvk Fkk] j[kokyh ds fy, xbZ Fkh vkSj lks jgh FkhA jkr ds yxHkx rhu cts vjksih esjh [kksyh esa x;k vkSj esjh vks<+h gqbZ jtkbZ dks [khap fn;k vkSj esjh lkM+h [khap fn;kA eSa ugha crk ldrh fd vkjksih dh fu;r esjh csbZtrh djus dh Fkh ;k eq>s ekjus dh FkhA eSa fpYykbZ] ekSds ij esjk ukSdj jkefeyu Hkh Fkk vkSj jkeLo:i ;kno vk x;kA jkefeyu cpkus yxk vkSj jkeLo:i cpkus yxs rc vfHk;qDr jkeLo:i ls fiyV iM+k FkkA ftl le; vfHk;qDr us esjh lkM++h gVkbZ Fkh ml le; vfHk;qDr us dqN dgk ugha FkkAß On going through the evidence of the prosecutrix it is luminously clear like a noon day that the prosecutrix herself was not certain whether the applicant snatched the quilt and sari in order to outrage her modesty or to kill her. At this juncture it would be relevant to refer to section 354, IPC which reads thus: "354. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending thereby to dishonour that person, otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." If the provision of section 354, IPC is kept in juxtaposition to para 1 of the evidence of the prosecutrix, which I have quoted hereinabove, it would reveal that the prosecutrix herself was not certain whether the applicant snatched her sari in order to outrage her modesty. Therefore, according to me, no offence under section 354, IPC is hereby made out. Learned two Courts below, by ignoring this material piece of evidence, have passed the impugned judgment and convicted the applicant under section 354, IPC, which according to me, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Resultantly, this revision succeeds. The conviction of the applicant under section 354, IPC is set aside. The applicant is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.