SUKHDAS Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned JMFC, Seoni vide judgment dated 16/12/2011 in Criminal Case No.1814/2005 convicted the applicant for offence punishable under Sections 452, 354 and 323 of I.P.C and sentenced for six months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/ -, six months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/ - and four months simple imprisonment. In Criminal Appeal No.03/2012 the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni vide judgment dated 4.9.2012 maintained the convictions as directed by the trial Court but conviction for offence punishable under Section 452 of I.P.C was reduced for the offence punishable under Section 451 of I.P.C and sentenced the applicant for offence punishable under Sections 451, 354 and 323 of I.P.C with three months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/ -, three months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/ - and one months simple imprisonment. Being aggrieved with the judgment passed by both the Courts below the applicant preferred the present revision.

(2.) THE prosecution's case in short is that, on 29.9.2005 the prosecutrix (PW1) was cooking in her house situated at Gram Jangal -tola, Police Station Barghat, District Seoni. At about 9.30 a.m, the applicant entered inside the house without any permission and started abusing her. He held the hand of the prosecutrix and also pressed her breasts. On her shouting the applicant ran away from the spot. Due to holding of her hand some bangles were broken and abrasions were caused to the victim. On her shouting her husband Khayal Singh (PW2) and other witnesses came to the spot. Ultimately an FIR Ex.P/4 was lodged at Police Station Barghat within 2 1/2 hours. The prosecutrix was sent for her medico legal examination and treatment. Dr. N. K. Gajbhiye (PW3) examined her at CHC Barghat and gave his report Ex.P/1. Abrasions were found on her both the hands. After due investigation a charge sheet was filed before the trial Court.

(3.) THE applicant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea but he has stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter. No defence evidence was adduced.