JITENDRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by the petitioners against the judgment dtd. 25/1/2023 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, Distt. Gwalior, in Criminal Appeal No.30/2022 affirming the judgment dtd. 4/4/2022 passed b y the JMFC, Dabra, in Criminal Case No.1375/2015 convicting petitioner under Ss. 354 and 323 (on five counts) of IPC and sentencing him to suffer 1 year RI with fine of Rs.500.00 and TRC with fine of Rs.1,000.00 on each count respectively. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that on 4/10/2015 complainant- had gone to bring milk, his mother and sister had gone to take water and his wife was alone in the house. Suddenly on hearing cry of his wife, his mother and sister rushed to the house, then his wife told them that petitioner Jitendra was molesting her, at that juncture, petitioner Jitendra carrying Danda, his father iron rod, mother Mamta Danda and his sister Jyoti armed with Baka like object came there and assaulted the complainant, his father, mother and brother Dharmendra, Petitioner Jitendra was harassing her wife for long time. FIR was lodged. Matter was investigated. Petitioner and co-accused were arrested. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. Trial was conducted. After trial, petitioner has been convicted as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner preferred appeal which was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. On the same day one NCR has been filed against the complainant party. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Complainant Sonu in para 3 of his cross-examination has admitted that before the incident petitioner Jitendra eloped with his wife. Thereafter he has stated that by persuading he took away her. It has been further stated by this witness that his wife was recovered after two days and he does not know how long their love affair is going on, whereas Victim (PW-2) in cross-examination para 5 has stated that on the date of incident she has seen petitioner Jitendra for the first time and she does not know him beforehand. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of such facts, since the petitioner has no criminal past, benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 be extended to him. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on para 13 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lakhvir Singh and others Vs. The State of Punjab and others decided on 19/1/2021 in Criminal Appeal Nos.47-48 of 2021 which reads as under :

(3.) Learned counsel for the State opposed the said prayer. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Sec. 354 of IPC reads as under :