Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 806 (MP)

Hemraj Berwa v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2020-08-14

ANAND PATHAK

body2020
JUDGMENT Anand Pathak, J. - The present revision petition under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06-05-2020 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sheopur in Criminal Appeal No.24/2018 partly modifying the judgment of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sheopur District Sheopur in Criminal Case No.1200805/2016 and petitioner has been convicted of the charge under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to 1 year's RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that on 19-09-2016 when victim was coming to take fodder from her agriculture field in the way, accused Hemraj crossed her, came behind and took her into his bosom and pressed her breasts. As a result, fodder of victim fell down and when victim tried to catch Hemraj he fled away but his ball pen dropped at the spot. Thereafter, victim lodged the FIR at police station. Matter was investigated and challan was filed in the matter for the offences under Section 354 of IPC before the concerned Magistrate. 3. Before the trial Court -Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sheopur, petitioner abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. After recording of evidence ocular as well as documentary and hearing the submission of counsel for the parties, the trial Court convicted the petitioner of the charge under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer 2 years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- 4. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court has been challenged by the petitioner by preferring criminal appeal. The appellate Court partly allowed the said appeal and reduced the jail sentence of the petitioner from 2 years' RI to 1 year's RI but maintained the fine amount as directed by the trial Court, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioner for the offence referred above. No independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are several contradictions and omissions in the statements of witnesses but the Courts below ignored the same and convicted the petitioner. No independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are several contradictions and omissions in the statements of witnesses but the Courts below ignored the same and convicted the petitioner. It is further submitted that agriculture field of accused petitioner and husband of prosecutrix is adjacent and water leakage from the field of brother-in-law (Jeth) of the prosecutrix to the agriculture field of accused was also a point of dispute, therefore, there was dispute between both the families. It is also submitted that at the time of incident, some labourers were present at the agriculture field, but prosecutrix did not cry and did not share the incident with those labourers who were present on the spot in agriculture fields, therefore, it is a case of false implication. Petitioner does not bear any criminal antecedents and is a law abiding citizen. This is his first encounter with the police case. Thus, prayed for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the appellate Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of petition. It is further submitted that in the case in hand, the prosecutrix and witnesses remained firm in their statements before the police and Court. There is no material contradictions and omissions in the matter. 6. After requisition of the record, with consent heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the record. 7. It is the case where revisionist/petitioner is convicted for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to 2 years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-. The order of trial Court was put to challenge and Sessions Court vide its judgment dated 06-05- 2020 reduced the sentence to 1 year's RI while maintaining the fine amount. 8. In the case in hand, prosecutrix/victim lodged an oral complaint on which FIR Ex-P/1 was registered containing the allegations that when victim was coming to take fodder from her agriculture field, then accused Hemraj who was going to address the call of nature came behind and took her into his bosom and tried to outrage her modesty as reflected in FIR. She referred a fact in a specific terms that during this incident ball pen of accused dropped on the spot and she came back and told the story to her husband and brother -in -law (Jeth). Crime detail form Ex-P/2 and arrest memo of accused Ex-P/3 are documentary evidence and her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was filed by accused during her cross-examination as Ex-D/1. 9. Her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. also indicates the narration of story in same vein and her Court statement as PW-1 also appears to be intact and without any dent. 10. In her Court statement, in examination-in-chief, she referred the name of her brother-in-law (Jeth) as Lokendra who called the police. In her cross-examination when she was asked to refer the names of family members of her in-laws then she referred the name of Lokendra as one of the cousins of her husband Ramavtar. Therefore, it is clear that she did not make any inconsistent statement in FIR or statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. or in Court statement. 11. In her cross-examination defence tried to shake the testimony of witness but she stood firm. She categorically denied the question of any dispute existing between the families of her inlaws and accused Hemraj. Besides that, she also explained in her cross-examination that no crops were standing at that point of time and some of the crops were laid down after cutting through, therefore, she demolished defence of accused about presence of some other manual labourers. This fact is further corroborated from the testimony of Rambabu, Head Constable (PW-4) who was Investigating Officer in the case and he in para 3 categorically mentioned the fact (in cross-examination) that crops were not standing when he visited the spot after incident and they were lied down in the field. He also narrated the fact that when he visited the spot, he did not find any farmers at their respective fields. Therefore, it is apparently clear and rather established that at the time of incident, no rush of people present who could have witnessed the incident and perhaps because of situation, petitioner got emboldened. 12. Court statement of Ramavtar (PW-2) also remained firm and he supported the story of prosecution without any dent. He also rejected the theory of existing dispute put forward by the accused. 12. Court statement of Ramavtar (PW-2) also remained firm and he supported the story of prosecution without any dent. He also rejected the theory of existing dispute put forward by the accused. He denied existence of any dispute between his family and family of accused. 13. In such cases where allegations are regarding outraging the modesty of a female, oral evidence assumes importance in absence of any other electronic/documentary evidence or in absence of any substantial counter allegation regarding some motive for false implication. Here, no such motive of false allegation established by the accused. Trial Court as well as appellate Court screened the evidence and thereafter came to the conclusion about the implication of petitioner/revisionist. In fact appellate Court reduced the jail sentence from 2 years to 1 year which is minimum sentence prescribed for offence under Section 354 of IPC. No evidence in favour of accused exist to doubt the case of prosecution or to conclude otherwise than the judgments of Courts below. 14. In fact street harassment is far more pervasive and humiliating than the threat of physical sexual assault, therefore, it is imperative that Investigation (Police Authority), Prosecution (Public Prosecutor) and Adjudication (Judge) must keep in mind that Crime and Disorder are strongly interrelated and therefore, Broken Windows Theory, a Criminological Theory mainly influence Police and law enforcement but has material bearing in realm of prosecution and adjudication also. According to this theory, targeting minor disorder is expected to reduce occurrence of more serious crime. Idea behind is can be summarized in an expression that if a window in a building is broken and left unrepaired, all of the windows will soon be broken. Therefore, it is a theory of Order Maintenance Police but it has relevance for prosecution and for adjudication also as referred above because punishment of minor offences ought to have preventive effect on more harmful acts and therefore, if minor offences at the threshold are checked or objected then it may prevent commission of severe offences.{See Cr.A.No.6326/2019, Miss X Vs. Santosh Sharma & others}. 15. In India non resolution of minor boundary dispute in agricultural field or delay in partition of land by revenue authorities at times result in offence under Sections 325/326 or 307 or 302 of IPC. Incrementally stage-wise. Santosh Sharma & others}. 15. In India non resolution of minor boundary dispute in agricultural field or delay in partition of land by revenue authorities at times result in offence under Sections 325/326 or 307 or 302 of IPC. Incrementally stage-wise. Therefore, nipping the crime at the budding stage is imperative and is the need of hour otherwise lawlessness shall overshadow the 'Rule of Law'. 16. Resultantly, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petitioner/accused is already in jail. Therefore, he shall have to suffer the jail sentence as directed by the appellate Court in appeal for 1 year's RI in total along fine of Rs.1,000/-. 17. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary compliance. 18. Revision petition stands dismissed.