BHUNESHWAR PRASAD GHIRI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been brought challenging correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment dated 15-01-2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.70/2019 passed by the Sessions Judge Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh convicting the applicant for offence under Section 506 Part I of the IPC sentencing with R.I. for 01 year with fine of Rs.5000/- and under Section 354A of the IPC sentencing R.I. for 01 year with fine of Rs.10000/-, along with default stipulations.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the judgment of conviction against him by the appellate court is totally erroneous, illegal and arbitrary. The applicant was prosecuted before the Trial Court in Criminal Case No.1395/2017 for offences under Section 354A and 506 B of the IPC. Learned trial Court acquitted the applicant from all these charges by judgment dated 31- 10-2019. Respondent No.2 then preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge, Bemetara which was decided by the impugned order mentioned hereinabove.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant, that the conviction against the applicant is bad in law. The joint complaint that was made by respondent No.2 and others was not specific and it does not contain any details as to in what manner the complainant and the other victims were being molested by the applicant. The complaint against the applicant had been that because of him the complainant and others felt mentally and physically tortured, that the applicant is engaged in indecent acts with the complainant and others and also that the applicant has abused and misbehaved with them. This complaint by itself does not make out any offence of Section 354A of the IPC as there was no act complained by the victims covered under Section 354A of the IPC. Similarly, the offence under Section 506 Part I is not made out on the basis of this complaint. It is also submitted that the complaint mentions that the action of the applicant was alleged to have continued for some years, whereas, the complaint was given on 18-09-2017, hence, the FIR (Ex.-P/2) in this case was miserably delayed. The FIR (Ex.-P/2) was immediately lodged on the complaint (Ex.-P/1) filed by the complainant and others, which was not proper course adopted by the police, which is against the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2014 2 SCC 1. It is submitted that the complainant and others who were posted as teachers in the Higher Secondary School of Nandghat, as all of them used to commute daily from their places of residence in different cities and towns to their workplace, because of which the applicant used to raise objections, therefore, the complainant and others were annoyed with the applicant. It is submitted that one teacher Usha Banjare (PW-6) has admitted in cross- examination that her husband appeared in the examination of Class XII, she has denied that the husband of Usha Banjare was caught copying and cheating in examination. She has also stated that husband of Jalwati Sahu (PW-1) has also appeared in the examination of Class XII of the same center, but other suggestions that he was caught cheating was again denied. It is submitted that these were the activities which the applicant wanted to expose, because of which the complainant and others were aggrieved and they have filed false complaint against the applicant. It is submitted that the impugned judgment is totally perverse and against the facts, circumstances and the law. Therefore, it is prayed that this revision petition be allowed and the impugned judgment be set aside and the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court be restored.