SANTOSH GIRI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 20.3.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Asansol in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 2008 thereby convicting the appellant Santosh Giri under section 354 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. On 02.12.2003 at about 8.30 p.m., an incident had taken place in the staff quarters of Bonjemari Colliery field. The appellant allegedly broke open the door of the quarters belonging to Dinanath Yadav and entered into the room in his absence with an intention to outrage the modesty of his wife Lalbachia Devi. The appellant also used criminal force and assaulted her. The children of Lalbachia Devi started crying and the appellant left the place after snatching gold necklace from Lalbachia Devi. The local people took Lalbachia Devi to the E.C.L. Hospital. On the basis of one FIR to that effect lodged by Dinanath Yadav on 05.12.2003, Salampur Police Station Case No. 46 of 2003 dated 05.12.2003 under sections 451/354/323/307/379 of the IPC was started and on conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for prosecuting him under the abovementioned sections. The appellant Santosh Giri was arrayed to face charges under sections 451/354/323/307/379 of the IPC. As he pleaded not guilty to the charges, the trial commenced. The learned Judge, upon consideration of the evidence on record came to a conclusion that the appellant Santosh Giri although did not commit any offence under section 451/323/307/379 of the IPC but, committed the offence under section 354 of the IPC. Accordingly, the learned Court recorded his conviction order and sentence which has been impugned in this appeal.

(2.) Mr. Mitra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the appellant has committed offence under section 354 of the IPC. Simply causing hurt does not amount to outrage of modesty in the absence of any such intention. He contends further that the evidence led by the prosecution is full of contradiction, uncorroboration, embellishment, exaggeration and entirely false.

(3.) Mr. Mitra contends further that Dinanath Yadav, the husband of the victim, lodged the FIR stating the facts that the appellant entered into the room with an intention to outrage the modesty of his wife. When his wife tried to raise a hue and cry, she was beaten badly. Santosh Giri also throttled the neck of his wife with an intention to kill her. Before he left, Santosh snatched away gold chain and locket of his wife. The neighbourers rushed to the place of occurrence hearing the alarm and took his wife to the hospital where she was treated medically.