Back
V.K.BALI
Vasudevan – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Key Points: - The prosecution failed to prove an intention to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix under Section 354 IPC; the case was a pure and simple hurt (!) . - The conviction and sentence under Section 354 IPC were set aside; the petitioner was held guilty under Sections 323 IPC (hurt) and 451 IPC (criminal trespass) instead (!) . - The petitioner is not sent to jail due to protracted trial history; instead, a fine of Rs. 3,000 is imposed on the petitioner, payable to the defacto complainant, with default imprisonment of one month for both Sections 323 and 451 IPC, to be served concurrently (!) . - The magistrate’s order dated 18 February 1995 and the appellate order dated 9 August 1996 reversing the Section 354 conviction were set aside (!) . - The examination of PW1 indicates the absence of a case under Section 354 IPC based on the statements; the court emphasizes the lack of intention to outrage modesty (!) (!) . - The incident occurred in 1991; the court notes the protracted trial spanning about 14 years and grants consideration in light of that period (!) .
V.K. Bali, C.J. (Oral)
Petitioner - Vasudevan was tried for the offences under Sections 451 and 354 of Indian Penal Code. After the trial on the offences mentioned above, he was held guilty and convicted under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months as also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He was also held guilty and convicted under Section 451 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months as also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. There was a further direction to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- under Section 357 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. out of the final realized. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18th February, 1995 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikara, petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikara vide order dated 9th August, 1996. It is against these two orders, the present criminal revision petition has been filed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that even if one is to go by the statement of the prosecutr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
