Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 1168
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rajendra Mahajan, J.
Anil S/O Lakhanlal – Petitioner
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent
Cri. Rev. No. 1084 of 2014
Decided On : 28-02-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K. S. Rajput
For the Respondent: R. N. Yadav
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish the accused's guilt beyond all reasonable doubts, and the lack of credible evidence can lead to acquittal.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision - Conviction under section 354-A(3) of the Indian Penal Code - [Cr.P.C. 397, 401] - [Indian Penal Code, section 354-A(2), 354-A(3)] - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses and found that the identification of the accused as the offender was not established beyond reasonable doubt. The court also highlighted the lack of evidentiary value in the witnesses' testimonies, leading to the acquittal of the accused under section 354-A(3) of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant and her cousin sister were involved in an incident where the accused allegedly committed an offense under section 354-A(3) of the Indian Penal Code. The trial magistrate convicted the accused, but the appellate judge partly allowed the appeal. The applicant filed a revision against the impugned judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused committed the offense. The identification of the accused as the offender was not credible, and the witnesses' testimonies lacked evidentiary value.
Issues: The main issue was the credibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses and the identification of the accused as the offender.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of credible evidence establishing the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the accused was acquitted of the offense under section 354-A(3) of the Indian Penal Code. The bail-bonds were cancelled, and the trial Court was directed to refund the fine amount if deposited by the applicant.
ORDER :
This criminal revision under section 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C. is preferred by the applicant against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23-5-2014 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa in Criminal Appeal No. 20/14, whereby the learned ASJ has partly allowed the applicant’s appeal. It be noted that vide the judgment dated 16-1-2014 passed in Criminal Case No. 1243/13, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khandwa has convicted the applicant under section 354-A(2) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him thereunder to suffer RI for one year with a fine of Rs.1000/- (one thousand) with default jail sentence, whereas the learned ASJ has convicted the applicant under section 354-A(3), Indian Penal Code and sentenced him thereunder to suffer SI for three months with a fine of Rs.2000/- (two thousand) with default clause.
2. The facts which are essential to be stated for adjudication on this revision are thus :—
In the night of 8-4-2013, the complainant (PW-1) aged about 21 years and her cousin sister Mohini (PW-2) aged about 11 years had gone to answer the call of nature in an open passage nearby the agricultural field of one Nanabhai Donde situated on the periphery of village Haraswada. At about 7:30 p.m., applicant Anil caught hold of the complainant with a sexual intent. He asked her to give her mobile phone number and to show her genitals. When she cried loudly, he closed her mouth. However, she got herself freed from the hold of the applicant and she and Mohini came running to her house, where she narrated the incident to her mother Durgabai (PW-4) and brother Rohit (PW-3). On the following day, her father Bhagwan (PW-6) came as he was out-of station on the date of incident. She also reported the matter to him. On 9-4-2013, she accompanied by her parents and brother reached Police Station Chhaigaon Makhan. At about 7:45 p.m., she made an oral statement of the incident to Sub Inspector Ramyash Tiwari (PW-5). Upon her oral statement, he recorded the FIR Ex.P-1 and registered a case at Crime No. 74/2013 against the applicant for the offences punishable under sections 341 and 354-B, Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, he investigated the case. During the investigation, he prepared the spot map Ex.P-2, recorded the case diary statements of the persons who were acquainted with the incident, and arrested the applicant vide arrest memo Ex.P-3. Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the applicant in the aforesaid sections of law.
3. The learned trial Magistrate framed the charges against the applicant under section 354-A and 341, Indian Penal Code. The applicant pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. In the examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied all the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. His defence was that he had been falsely implicated in the case as he had not committed the alleged offence. However, he did not examine any witness in support of his defence.
4. The learned trial Magistrate, having closely analyzed the evidence on record, held the applicant guilty of committing the offence punishable under section 354-A(2), Indian Penal Code, but acquitted him of the offence punishable under section 341, Indian Penal Code. He sentenced the applicant under section 354-A(2), Indian Penal Code as noted in para-1 of this order. Feeling aggrieved thereby, he filed an appeal. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned appellate Judge convicted him under section 354-A(iv), Indian Penal Code and sentenced him under section 354-A(3), Indian Penal Code as stated in para-1 of this order. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the applicant approached this Court by filing this revision.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant, after having extensively referred to the depositions of the complainant (PW-1) and Mohini (PW-2), submitted that the complainant
