(1.) BY the present petition, the Petitioners seeks setting aside of the order dated 24th February, 2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge upholding the order of conviction of the Petitioners passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicting the Petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 323/354/341IPC read with Section 506/34 IPC. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 27th September, 2008 had sentenced the Petitioners to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months each for offence under Sections 323/354 IPC and Imprisonment for two months under Section 506 IPC. The petitioners were further directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,000/- each under provisions of 357 Cr. PC.
(2.) BRIEFLY, the prosecution case is that on 2nd May, 2003 at about 10:30 p.m. near DDA Gate, Janta Flat the petitioners along with the co-accused Praveen with common intention voluntarily caused hurt to Prosecutrix and assaulted her with intent to outrage her modesty. All the accused in furtherance of common intention had kidnapped her in order to secretly confine her and threatened to kill her and not to allow her to remain in the locality thereby causing alarm to her. On the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix, FIR No. 107/2003 under Section 323/354/365/34 IPC was registered and on investigation charge sheet was filed against the Petitioners and Praveen. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicted and sentenced the Petitioners as mentioned above. Aggrieved by this judgment and order on sentence, the Petitioners preferred an appeal. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated 24th February, 2009 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
(3.) PER contra, learned APP for the State contends that PW1, the prosecutrix/Complainant has specifically stated that the Petitioners and Praveen grappled her, did indecent act and forcibly pulled her. This witness was cross examined but nothing substantial could be elicited from her testimony. PW2 has fully supported the testimony of PW1. Also the Petitioners have not denied the act. The only defence pleaded by them is that Petitioner No. 2 was having a love affair with the prosecutrix so there was no molestation as alleged by the prosecutrix. The evidence placed on record is clear which attract the provisions under which the petitioners are convicted. The present petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.