The main legal point established in the judgment is that an attempt to commit an offense under Section 354(C) of the Indian Penal Code can lead to conviction, even if the offense was not completed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 10.07.2020, passed by the court of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge – II, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No.88 of 2019, whereby the judgment dated 12.04.2019, passed by the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in Bermo P.S. Case No.36 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No.258 of 2015 (Tr. No.125 of 2019), has been modified and the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 354(C) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay the fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default thereof, to further undergo S.I for three months.

3. The prosecution story is that the revisionist has tried to take photographs of the victim while she was defecating in a toilet having no roof. The F.I.R has been lodged by the police being Bermo P.S. Case No.36 of 2015 and after completing the investigation the police filed the charge-sheet under Sections 294, 354 and 354(C) of the Indian Penal Code and the revisionist has been put to trial. In order to substantiate the prosecution story, altogether five witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. P.W – 1 is the uncle of the victim, P.W.-2 is the father of the victim, P.W.-3 is the mother of the victim, P.W.-4 is the victim herself and P.W. -5 is the brother of the victim. P.Ws.-1, 2, 3 and 5 are the hearsay witnesses and they have deposed on the basis of narration made by P.W.-4, i.e., the victim herself. P.W.-4 has stated that when she had gone to toilet, having no roof, for defecating at about 11:00 P.M., in the night, she saw that the revisionist is trying to capture her photographs through his mobile and on raising alarm by her, the revisionist has escaped.

After completion of the trial, revisionist has been acquitted from the charges under Sections 294 and 354 of the I.P.C, but has been convicted under Section 354(C) of the I.P.C and has been punished simple imprisonment for two years along with fine, which has been reduced by the appellate court to the minimum period of one year along with fine upholding the conviction under Section 354(C) of the I.P.C.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that even if the allegation is taken to its face value then also it is merely an attempt and the offence is not complete and on that basis, prayer has been made for reducing the sentencing part. It has been further submitted while referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakhvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 763 that benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act should be extended to the accused as the minimum punishment is no bar.

It has further been submitted that the revisionist is a good boy having no previous allegation and further he was aged about 24 years at the time of commission of crime. He has remained in custody for about six months. On the above facts, the reduction of sentencing or giving benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act has been made.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer and it has been submitted that the revisionist had at least seen the victim while she was defecating and as such the offence under Section 354 (C) of the I.P.C is complete and no leniency is required in the matter.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that there is no allegation of watching the victim rather it has been alleged by the victim that the revisionist had attempted to capture her photographs through mobile and as per the allegation itself, it is merely an attempt and the revisionist had not succeeded in taking photographs. Further, the victim has not made the allegation of watching. Thus, at the best the ingredients of attempt of committing cr