The prompt filing of a complaint, lack of material contradictions in the victim's statement, and absence of evidence indicating enmity between the victim and the accused are crucial factors in establishing guilt under Section 354 of IPC, 1860.

JUDGMENT

S K Awasthi, J. - Applicant/Accused has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") against the judgment dated 30/11/2017 passed by Sessions Judge, District Ujjain, in Cri. Appeal No.320/2017, whereby the Sessions Court dismissed the appeal by affirming the judgment dated 22/08/2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Ujjain in Criminal Case No.855/2012 by which the applicant has been convicted for offence under Section 354 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I., and a fine of Rs.100/- with usual default stipulation.

2. As per prosecution story, on 22/02/2012 at about 21.15 hours when the prosecutrix went to feed the cow in cow shed, at that time the applicant came behind her, closed her mouth and pressed her breast in order to outrage her modesty. Prosecutrix raised alarm thereafter her son Pankaj and one Mahesh Nayak came there running. On seeing them, the applicant escaped from the spot. Pankaj took his mother to their house and he called his father from the field. Prosecutrix narrated the incident to her husband, she went to the police-station with her husband and filed complaint. On the basis of which Police registered FIR bearing Crime No.157/2012 for offence under Sections 354 of IPC, 1860. During the investigation prosecutrix was sent for medical examination, police visited the spot, drawn spot map (Ex.P/2), recorded the statement of the witnesses and arrested the applicant. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicant.

3. Trial Court, while passing the judgment, convicted the applicant/accused persons for offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I., and a fine of Rs.100/- with usual default stipulation. An appeal was filed against the said conviction and sentence, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 30/11/2017 by Sessions Judge. This judgment is under challenge in the present revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence and ignored the material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the victim and other witnesses. It is further submitted that the independent witnesses of the case did not support the prosecution story. It is also submitted that according to medical report no injuries has been found in the person of the prosecutrix, therefore, the allegation levelled against the applicant appears to be false, but the Courts below did not consider the aforesaid facts & circumstances and committed error in convicting the applicant for the offence under Section 354 of IPC, 1860, sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I., and a fine of Rs.100/- with usual default stipulation hence counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment.

5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent State supported the impugned judgment by contending that after due appreciation of evidence, learned Courts below have found the applicant guilty of the aforesaid offence. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, hence, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and record.

7. Victim (P.W.1) has categorically stated that the applicant came from behind, shut her mouth and pressed her breast with intend to outrage her modesty. Govind (P.W.2) husband of the prosecutrix also supported her statement. The incident took place on 20/02/2012 at about 21.15 hours and the FIR has been lodged on the same day at 23.40 hours within a period of 2 hours whereas the distance of the police-station from the place of occurrence is 12 Kms., which shows that FIR has been promptly registered. The statement of the victim is also corroborated with the contents of the FIR (Ex.P/