AJAYA KUMAR DASALIAS KANKA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was accused in G.R. Case No. 1044 of 1998 in the Court of the J.M.S.C., Baripada. He was alleged to have committed an offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code for outraging the modesty of a woman. It was alleged that on 1-11-1993 at about 4 p.m. while the informant and his wife were witnessing a 'Mela', the petitioner moved his hands on the private part of the wife of the informant. The petitioner was caught red-handed by the informant and his wife. During trial, in order to prove its case, prosecution examined five witnesses, of whom P.W.1 was the informant, P.W.2 was the wife of the informant, the victim, P.Ws. 3 and 4 were two independent witnesses and P.W.5 was the A.S.I. of Police, the investigating officer, P.W.2, in her deposition in Court categorically stated that the petitioner touched her private part while she was witnessing the 'Mela'. Immediately thereafter she (P.W.2) called her husband P.W.1 who was a little ahead of her and P.W.1 caught hold of the petitioner red-handed and informed the matter to police. The evidence of P.W.2 was not shaken in any manner in cross-examination. As a matter of fact, she was not at all cross-examined by the defence. The informant P.W.1 who was the husband of the victim, corroborated the evidence of P.W.2. P.Ws. 3 and 4 who were independent witnesses also stated on solemn affirmation that they were near the place of occurrence when they heard the shouts of P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.W.5, the investigating officer, also supported the prosecution case. Nothing was elicited on cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses by the defence to discredit their statements. The defence plea was a complete denial and it was also submitted that out of previous enmity the case had been falsely foisted against the accused.

(2.) After vivid discussion of the evidence, the J.M.S.C. found the petitioner guilty under Section 354, IPC, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months by judgment dated 30th May, 2002. The said judgment of the J.M.S.C. was challenged by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in appeal. The said appeal was finally heard by the Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Baripada being numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 121/18 of 2002. The appellate Court also discussed the evidence in extenso and came to the conclusion that the prosecution had well established the charge under Section 354, IPC against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts. The appeal was thus dismissed and the conviction and sentence passed by the J.M.S.C. were confirmed. The petitioner in this Criminal Revision has impugned the aforesaid confirming judgment.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the judgments of conviction and order passed by the Courts below as also the materials on record. It appears that both the Courts below after discussing the evidence, both oral and documentary, came to right conclusion. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any error, either on fact or law, committed by the Courts below.