SHANTARAM NILKANTHA MESHRAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant challenges concurrent findings of two courts below in this revision. The applicant was tried and held guilty for the offence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and pay fine of Rs. 300/- in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for fifteen days.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant came from behind and caught the breasts of the prosecutrix. The Courts below have believed the prosecution case.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the applicant urged before me that there are contradictions in evidence whether the prosecutrix knew the applicant inasmuch as she first stated that she was knowing the applicant/accused before the incident, then stated that she knew the applicant by face and ultimately stated that she knew him by name. It is also urged by learned Advocate for applicant that though she stated that she was weeping and narrating the incident while going to the house of applicant/accused in order to complaint to his father, she had met number of persons to whom she had narrated the incident, but no such witnesses have been examined. Learned Advocate for the applicant therefore, urged that the version of the prosecute could not be believed and the courts below have erred in convicting the applicant. Alternatively, he prayed that the applicant be released on probation and in support of his submission, learned Advocate for applicant placed reliance on (Naib Singh v. The State of Punjab), 1980 C. L. R. (P. and H.) 29, (Ippili Trinadha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh), 1984 Cri. L. J. 1254; (Panchu Parida v. State of Orissa), 1993 Cri. L. J. 953 and (Dilip Ramchandra Umare v. State of Maharashtra), 1996 Cri. L. J. 72. Alternative to this submission, it was further urged that the applicant was in custody/jail for a period of nine days which period should be considered as sufficient substantive sentence and fine imposed may be increased.