Conviction for non-compoundable offences requires clear evidence; doubts in victim's statements should benefit the accused.

1. By means of filing a criminal revision petition on 04.06.2018 petitioner challenged the judgment and order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District in Criminal Appeal No. 47(3) of 2016 affirming the judgment and order dated 12.08.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amarpur in Case No. GR 184 of 2011 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under S.448 and S.354 IPC and sentenced him to RI for one year under S.448 and RI for 2 years under S.354 and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.

2. The genesis of the prosecution case is rooted in the FIR lodged by the mother of victim with the officer in charge of Birganj police station at Amarpur on 03.11.2011 wherein it was alleged that at about 10.30 pm at previous night, the petitioner who was a neighbour of her entered into her house and outraged the modesty of her daughter by pulling her hands. Following her cry, the neighbours came out and rescued her daughter. The accused was also physically assaulted by the neighbours. When she returned home she saw the accused in her house who was detained by her neighbours.

3. On the basis of the said FIR, Birganj PS case No. 83 of 2011 was registered for offence punishable under S.448 and S.354, IPC and the same was investigated by Goutam Jamatia, Sub Inspector of Police who after completion of investigation charge sheeted the petitioner for having committed offence punishable under S.448 and S.354, .

4. The trial commenced in the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Amarpur. Since the accused pleaded not guilty to the accusation, the prosecution witnesses were called. During trial, seven prosecution witnesses including the victim and her father were examined. After the recording of prosecution evidence was over, accused was examined under S.313 Cr. P. C. He abjured his guilt and claimed that the charge was foisted on him. Accused petitioner declined to adduce any evidence on his defence. On appreciation of evidence, trial court came to the conclusion that both the charges under S.448 and S.354 IPC was proved against the petitioner for which he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment as stated above.

5. Petitioner challenged the judgment and order of his conviction and sentence by filing appeal in the court of the Sessions Judge of Gomati Judicial District at Udaipur. Learned Sessions Judge having found no fault with the findings of the learned trial court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.

6. The aggrieved petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge in this criminal revision petition mainly on the following grounds:
(i) Learned Sessions Judge did not appreciate the fact that the victim, a matured lady categorically stated in her cross examination that the case was lodged against the accused who was a neighbour of her as a result of misunderstanding between them.
(ii) Learned Sessions Judge did not appreciate the fact that when the offence was committed it was a compoundable offence under S.320 Cr. P. C. and the parties amicably settled the matter since they were neighbours of each other and wanted to live in peace and harmony.
(iii) The learned Sessions Judge erroneously affirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner passed by the trial court without taking into consideration the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses.

7. During the pendency of this criminal revision petition, petitioner filed I.A No. 02 of 2020 seeking permission of the court under S.320 Cr. P. C. for compounding the offence.

8.