MANI RAM Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANI Ram Petitioner was convicted under Section 354, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment by the order of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palwal. On appeal to the Court of Session at Gurgaon, the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction under Section 354, Indian Penal Code, on the finding that there was no credible evidence in support thereof but convicted the Petitioner under Section 352, Indian Penal Code, and imposed a sentence of one month's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE prosecution allegations were that on 16th of March, 1968, Savitri prosecutrix had gone to Doongri black -smith for getting her sickle sharpened, but whilst she was returning near the Chaupal Din -gran, the Petitioner claimed the sickle as his own whereupon she said that she could look at it whether it belonged to him. The Petitioner is then said to have caught her armand pressed her breast. Thereupon the prosecutrix is said to have raised alarm attracting Ram Gopal and Ram Kishan P. Ws. to the spot. Seeing these witnesses the Petitioner is alleged to have fled from the spot. The prosecutrix narrated the version to her lather on his return to the village next morning and it was there -alter that a report was lodged in the police station and the present case was registered. The trial Court had relied upon the statements of Savitri (P.W.1), Khem Chand (PW. 2) her father, Ram Gopal (PW.3) and Ram Kishan another eye -witness had only been tendered for cross -examination whilst the rest of the prosecution evidence was of a formal nature and that of the invest gating officer.

(3.) THE primary contention of shri K.D. Singh appearing is support of this petition is that on the finding arrived at by the lower Appellate Court, the conviction of the Petitioner cannot be sustained. It was plausibly contended that the substratum of the prosecution case had been disbelieved and rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whilst setting aside the conviction of the Petitioner under Section 354, Indian Penal Code. It was contended that there was no adequate basis for the charge under Section 352, Indian Penal Code, now sought to be sustained against him.