JOGRAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.08.1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1990 partly allowing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order dated 21.12.1989 passed by the IXth Additional Sessions Judge/Civil Judge, Meerut convicting the revisionist for an offence under sections 323 and 354 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months' and under section 325 IPC for a period of two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Km. Lila and Mithlesh, daughters of Smt Chameli, the complainant had gone to the fields to take fodder and when they were returning towards village at about 4.00 p.m. accused Jograj armed with lathi and fawra reached there in the field. He took daranti from Lila and started dragging Lila by hand to molest her. Mithlesh raised alarm and Lila tried to rescue her and also raised alarm. The witnesses Pat Ram and Atar Singh reached the spot. In the meantime, accused Jograj caused injuries to Lila and Mithlesh with lathi and fawra. The case was registered against the accused -revisionist. The injuries of the girls were examined by the doctor and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted. The accused person was committed to the court of sessions and he was charged for offence under sections 354, 323, 325 and 308 IPC. The accused -revisionist pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PW -1 Smt. Chameli, PW -2 Atar Singh, PW -3 Panna Singh, PW -4 Dr S.C. Gupta, Senior Radiologist, PW -5 Lila, PW -6 Mithlesh, PW -7 C.R. Singh, PW -8 Constable Ram Veer Singh.

(3.) ON the basis of evidence the learned trial court found the accused person guilty under sections 354, 323, 325 IPC and sentenced him to three months' rigorous imprisonment under section 324 IPC, six months' rigorous imprisonment under section 323 IPC, two years' rigorous imprisonment under section 325 IPC along with fine of Rs. 500/ - and two years' rigorous imprisonment under section 308 IPC with defaulting clause. Feeling aggrieved the accused -revisionist filed Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1990, which was partly allowed on 30.08.1990. The conviction and sentence of the accused -revisionist under sections 354, 323, 325 were upheld and the accused -revisionist was acquitted of the charge under section 308 IPC.