ORDER

1. Present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Khandwa District Khandwa in Criminal Appeal No.44/2022 partly modifying the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03-02-2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khandwa District Khandwa in Criminal Case No.786/2018 whereby the petitioner has been convicted as under:

Sections	Imprisonment	Fine
451 of IPC	6 months' RI	Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.
354 of IPC	1 year's RI	Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation

3. Before the trial Court -Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khandwa, petitioner abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. Prosecution examined 6 witnesses in support of its case and in defence, accused/petitioner has been examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. After recording of evidence ocular as well as documentary and hearing the submission of counsel for the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for offence under Sections 354 and 452 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 1 year's RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- and 1 year's RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-<br/>

respectively with default stipulation.

4. Before the Sessions Judge, Khandwa District Khandwa, appeal has been preferred by the petitioner, challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khandwa District Khandwa which was partly allowed and petitioner was convicted and sentenced as referred above. Hence, this revision petition.

5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, there are material contradictions persist in the evidence led by the prosecution. Prosecution did not examine any eye witness in the case while the place where such alleged incident occurred is Anganwadi Kendra and situate in mid of the village and probably there will be other persons also. It is further submitted that the trial Court committed grave error in relying over the statements of hearsay witnesses i.e. son of prosecutrix Vicky (PW-3) and head of Anganwadi Kendra namely Saroj Patel (PW-5). Apart that, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards the contradictions and omissions crept into the statements of witnesses. Thus, both the Courts below have committed error in convicting the petitioner by relying over the ocular evidence of victim and her relatives which are not supported by any independent witness.

6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submitted that the trial Court has rightly convicted the petitioner for the offences referred above and rightly confirmed by the Sessions Court. Thus, prayed for dismissal of petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Courts below.

8. Here, petitioner is facing the conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 451 and 354 of IPC as referred above. The victim (PW-1) remained firm in all her statements i.e. Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. and the statement recorded before the trial Court. In her examination-in-chief she identified the accused and narrated the story in specific term while supporting the story of prosecution. In her cross-examination, she stood firm over her testimony and did not deviate from her statement.

9.Version of victim is very well supported by other witnesses also i.e. her son Vicky (PW-3), her husband Prakash (PW-2) and head of the Anganwadi Kendra Saroj Patel (PW-5). There is as such no contradiction and omission in the statements of victim and other witnesses compelling the Court to take different view. The victim has specifically supported the story of prosecution.

10. So far as the contention of counsel for petit