JAYAKANTH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC on a trial held by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, and confirmed by the Fast Track Court, Bangalore, in Criminal Appeal No. 386/ 2005.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of the petition are as under: shilpa Rani (P. W. 3) is the resident of J. P. Nagar, Bangalore, and is the sister of Vinod Kumar (P. W. 1 ). The husband of Shilpa Rani was working in Tumkur and on 27. 5. 2001 at 5. 30 p. m. , she had gone to dental clinic along with her brother P. W. 1 and while they were returning, at J. P. Nagar turning point, it is alleged that the petitioner/accused blinked his eye and asked her to accompany him. She got angry and asked him whether he has no sense of humanity and showed her leg and chappal. The petitioner enraged, came near her suddenly, pulled her stole calling her as a beautiful lady. He also threatened her to kidnap and deface by pouring acid. He abused her in filthy language and when her brother P. W. 1 intervened, he ran away from the spot. It is thereafter, P. W. 3 informed her parents and then approached the Police Station and submitted her complaint (Ex. P2), which came to be registered by P. W. 4 in Crime No. 334/2001 for the offence under Sections 504, 509, 354 and 506-B IPC and he sent the complaint (Ex. P2) and the FIR (Ex. P3) to the Magistrate. P. W. 4 visited the spot on the next day in the morning and in the presence of P. W. 2 and another held the spot mahazar (Ex. P1) and recorded the statement of the witnesses. He arrested the accused and after completion of the investigation, filed the charge-sheet. During the trial, the prosecution led the evidence by examining P. Ws. 1 to 4 and got marked documents Exs. Pl to 3. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. He has taken the defence of total denial and did not lead any evidence in his defence. The Trial Court by the Judgment and Order dated 3. 3. 2005 convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000-00, in default to pay the fine amount to undergo simple Imprisonment for 3 months. He was acquitted of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 509 IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction, he approached the Sessions Court in Crl. A. No. 386/ 2005. The said appeal came to be dismissed on merits. Aggrieved by the conviction and confirmation, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this revision petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader.