DHARAM SINGH AHIRWAR Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 3.3.2016 passed by First Addl. Sessions Judge, Vidisha in Cri.Appeal No.16/2016 confirming the judgment dated 4.1.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vidisha in Cri.Case No.903/2013 convicting the applicant for the offences under Sections 341, 354, 323 of IPC and sentenced to fine of Rs.500/- under Section 341, IPC; one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 354 IPC; and, six months RI with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323 IPC, with default stipulation.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 8.9.2012 at about 11.00 pm, complainant Prembai Ahirwar was returning along with her daughter after attending the call of nature, on the way accused Dharam Singh Ahirwar caught her and tried to fell her down, on her resist he gave beating to her causing injuries on chin, nose and knee. On her alarm, some persons came there then the accused ran away from the spot. On the next day the incident was reported at Police Station Dehat, Vidisha and case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354, 323, 427 and 506 of IPC at Crime No.448/2012. On completion of the investigation the Police filed the charge sheet before the Court of JMFC, Vidisha. After framing of charges and recording of evidence offence was found proved and the applicant was convicted as stated herein above. An appeal was preferred against that order, which was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant argued at length and submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated and thus wrongly convicted whereas he has not committed any offence. Learned counsel further submits that the Courts below committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence, correctness of the finding, therefore, the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside in the revision. Learned counsel for the applicant has alternatively submitted that the applicant has no previous antecedents, there was previous enmity between the parties and he shall maintain a good behaviour in future, therefore, since the applicant has already served approximately 119 days jail sentence, the same be reduced to the period already undergone and the amount of fine may be reasonably enhanced.