VINOD AHIRWAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of Cr.P.C has been preferred by the applicant challenging the judgment and order dtd. 6/12/2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Berasiya District Bhopal passed in Criminal Appeal No.02/2022 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 7/12/2021 passed by JMFC, Berasiya District Bhopal in RCT Case No.1023/2016 whereby learned JMFC convicted applicant for commission of offence under Ss. 456 and 354 of the IPC and sentenced to six months R.I. and fine of Rs.500.00 in the first count while One year R.I. and fine of Rs.1000.00in the second count with default stipulation.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short is that on 25/10/2016 at around 1.20 P.M. 18 years old prosecutrix Jyoti resident of village Bandikhedi lodged an F.I.R. in P.S. Gunga alleging that on 24/10/2016 at around 11.30 P.M of night she was sleeping in her house by closing the doors. At around 11.30 P.M. someone knocked the door of her house, she thought that her father has come, at this she switched-on the bulb and opened the door. But she saw her neighbour Vinod Ahirwar standing there; Vinod pushed her inside, trespassed into her house, caught hold her hand with bad intention and pressed her breasts. When she sounded alarm, he slapped her. Hearing her scream her cousin Rakesh Ahirwar (P.W.3) reached there, seeing him, applicant Vinod Ahirwar fled away from there. F.I.R was lodged next day. On the basis of said F.I.R. offence under Sec. 456 and 354 of IPC was registered. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

(3.) The learned JMFC framed the charges against the accused/applicant for commission of offence under Sec. 456 and 354 of IPC. Accused/ applicant pleaded not guilty. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined four witnesses, while accused/applicant in his defence examined Jitendra Kumar Ahirwar (D.W.1). In his statement recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C, accused/applicant stated false implication. On appreciation of evidence, learned JMFC came to the conclusion that both the charges under Sec. 456 and 354 of IPC were proved against the applicant but acquitted him for commission of offence under Sec. 323 of IPC. Thus, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment as mentioned hereinabove.