BALRAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on the question of admission. State counsel has taken notice of this admission, hence no further notice is required. The applicant's counsel submits that the record of the courts below have already been received, hence instead to hear the arguments on IA No.15626/11, this revision be heard finally. Learned Panel Lawyer, did not have any objection in such hearing. Pursuant to it, by dismissing the aforesaid application for suspension of the jail sentence, with the consent of the parties, this revision is heard finally. Order dictated in open court. This revision is directed by the applicant/accused, being aggrieved by the order dated 4.8.2011 passed by the IIIrd Addl.Sessions Judge, East Nimad, Khandwa in Cr.A.No.92/10 whereby dismissing his appeal and affirming the judgment dated 19.4.2010 passed by the JMFC Harsood in criminal Case No.730/2007 convicting and sentencing the applicant for the offence under section 354 of the IPC with a direction to undergo for RI six months with fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine further RI 15 days, he has been send to jail for facing the jail sentence.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on 15.12.07, the prosecutrix Sudha Pandey (PW 1), aged 18 years, accompanied with her father Suresh Prasad (PW 2), came to the market of village Ashapur. After marketing, when they reached to the bus stand, they saw that the bus had already gone. At the same time, the applicant was going to village Fafri on his motor-cycle then in faith that he will drop the prosecutrix at her residence, her father send her with the applicant. On the way, in the forest, applicant stationed the motor-cycle. On asking the reason of it by the prosecutrix, he said that he is going to get easy and immediately thereafter, with bad intention, he caught-hold the hand of the prosecutrix. THE prosecutrix tried to rescue herself. She was also subjected to threat of her life on telling such incident to anyone. THEreafter the prosecutrix came to her home walking and narrated the incident to her parents. Accordingly, by taking advantage of the situation, the applicant had tried to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix and committed such offence. On lodging the report with the police Khalwa, the applicant was arrested. After holding the investigation, the applicant was charge-sheeted for the offence of section 354 and 506 of the IPC. On framing the charges for the aforesaid offence, he abjured the same, on which the trial was held. On appreciation of the evidence, the applicant was held guilty for the offence under section 354 of the IPC and sentenced with the punishment as stated above, while he was acquitted from the charge of section 506-B IPC. On filing the appeal, the same was dismissed, on which, the applicant has come forward to this court with this revision.

(3.) HAVING heard the parties, after perusing the record, I have not found any perversity or infirmity in the judgment of both the courts below in appreciation of the evidence holding guilty to the applicant for the alleged offence. So, there is no scope in the matter for extending the acquittal to the applicant. Although the case has not been argued on this question by the applicant but before proceeding further, in order to do justice between the parties, I have examined the matter with the aforesaid angle also.