The main legal point established is the importance of oral evidence in cases of outraging the modesty of a female, the relevance of the Broken Windows Theory in addressing minor offenses, and the preventive effect on more harmful acts.

JUDGMENT

Anand Pathak, J. - The present revision petition under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06-05-2020 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sheopur in Criminal Appeal No.24/2018 partly modifying the judgment of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sheopur District Sheopur in Criminal Case No.1200805/2016 and petitioner has been convicted of the charge under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to 1 year's RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that on 19-09-2016 when victim was coming to take fodder from her agriculture field in the way, accused Hemraj crossed her, came behind and took her into his bosom and pressed her breasts. As a result, fodder of victim fell down and when victim tried to catch Hemraj he fled away but his ball pen dropped at the spot. Thereafter, victim lodged the FIR at police station. Matter was investigated and challan was filed in the matter for the offences under Section 354 of IPC before the concerned Magistrate.

3. Before the trial Court -Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sheopur, petitioner abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. After recording of evidence ocular as well as documentary and hearing the submission of counsel for the parties, the trial Court convicted the petitioner of the charge under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer 2 years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-

4. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court has been challenged by the petitioner by preferring criminal appeal. The appellate Court partly allowed the said appeal and reduced the jail sentence of the petitioner from 2 years' RI to 1 year's RI but maintained the fine amount as directed by the trial Court, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioner for the offence referred above. No independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are several contradictions and omissions in the statements of witnesses but the Courts below ignored the same and convicted the petitioner. It is further submitted that agriculture field of accused petitioner and husband of prosecutrix is adjacent and water leakage from the field of brother-in-law (Jeth) of the prosecutrix to the agriculture field of accused was also a point of dispute, therefore, there was dispute between both the families. It is also submitted that at the time of incident, some labourers were present at the agriculture field, but prosecutrix did not cry and did not share the incident with those labourers who were present on the spot in agriculture fields, therefore, it is a case of false implication. Petitioner does not bear any criminal antecedents and is a law abiding citizen. This is his first encounter with the police case. Thus, prayed for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the appellate Court.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of petition. It is further submitted that in the case in hand, the prosecutrix and witnesses remained firm in their statements before the police and Court. There is no material contradictions and omissions in the matter.

6. After requisition of the record, with consent heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the record.

7. It is the case where revisionist/petitioner is convicted for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to 2 years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-. The order of trial Court was put to challenge and Sessions Court vide its judgment dated 06-05- 2020 reduced the sentence to 1 year's RI while maintaining the fine amount.

8. In the case in hand, prosecutrix/victim lodged an oral complaint on which FIR Ex-P/1 was registered