LATOOR LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 7.3.2001 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gulabpura District Bhilwara whereby the conviction of the present petitioner under Section 457 IPC has been maintained and he has been sentenced for six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100.00 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are that Mahaveer Prasad has filed a written complaint that his daughter Mena Kumari is studying in local school in class IXth and the petitioner was a tuition teacher to her. About 15 days back, the petitioner while taking tuition of her daughter, used filthy language, hence the father of Mena Kumari discontinued the tuition and the present petitioner has also felt sorry for the above deed. Thereafter on 6.3.1993 at about 4 a.m., the present petitioner after breaking the kelus and bamboos of the roof, entered in the house of the complainant. He caught hold of neck of Mena Kumari. On cries of Mena Kumari, Puspa has awaken and the present petitioner fled away from the house. On this information, FIR has been lodged and after investigation, charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 457, 354 and 509 IPC has been filed against the present petitioner. The present petitioner has been charged for the above offence. 10 witnesses have been produced in support of the case of the prosecution. The statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Three witnesses were produced in defence and after hearing the parties, the present petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 457 and 354 IPC. The present petitioner has preferred appeal. He has been acquitted for the offence under Section 354 IPC but his conviction under Section 457 IPC has been maintained and sentenced as stated above. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) THE contention of the present petitioner is that the story is quite improbable. The incident is of 6.3.1993, whereas the FIR has been lodged after a considerable delay on 10.3.1993 and no explanation has been placed and this delay is also fatal to the prosecution as prior to this information, the present petitioner has also lodged the FIR against complainant Mahaveer Prasad and the witnesses and just to pressurizer, this FIR has been lodged. No such incident has taken place.