LAWS(UTN)-2021-1-11

ANIL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Decided On January 14, 2021
ANIL SHARMA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class/IInd Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Haridwar in Criminal Case No.1267 of 2014 "State Vs. Anil Sharma", whereby the revisionist has been convicted under Section 354 of IPC, and has been sentenced to undergo one year of simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) under Section 354 of IPC, with default stipulation. Against the order dated 20.10.2014, the revisionist filed an appeal before the IInd Additional Session Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No.155 of 2014, which too has been dismissed vide order dated 16.06.2015.

(2.) Prosecution story in brief is that on 26.04.2011 at about 12 PM when complainant (name withheld) PW1 went for her eye treatment in the cabin of Doctor at the "Mela Hospital", the accused/revisionist was sitting there. Thereafter the accused/revisionist has started the checkup of her eyes and by seeing the glasses of the complainant, the accused/revisionist said that both the glasses are defective. Complainant said that change of her glasses and during this period the accused/revisionist started pornographic acts with the complainant. When the complainant reported this incident to the Doctor Khan, Doctor Khan said that the accused/revisionist is not a Doctor but he is only a technician sitting with Eye Doctor. From this incident, the complainant is in mental agony. Thereafter, the complainant has given the written information to the concerned Police Station. On this basis of the written information, the Case Crime No.153 of 2011 under Section 354 of IPC has been registered against the revisionist/accused and after investigation the chargesheet has been filed against Anil Sharma/revisionist before the court concerned.

(3.) On denial of guilt, the prosecution got orally examined as many as four witnesses. The P.W.1 (name withheld) (complainant), P.W.2 S.I. Gajendra Singh, P.W.3 Constable Soorveer Singh and P.W.4 Dr S.N. Khan PW 4.