Budhan Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This revision under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.PC has been preferred against the judgment impugned dated 09.02.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Sarguja at Ambikapur in Criminal Appeal No. 98/2007 arising out of the judgment dated 06.10.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur in Criminal Case No. 363/2007.

Facts of the case in brief are that on 15.12.2006 at about 5 PM when the prosecutrix was standing near the house of her uncle, the accused/applicant came there and on account of some old standing enmity he started hurling filthy abuses at her. He is also alleged to have said to her of stripping her naked as earlier she had implicated him in a false case under Section 376 IPC. Saying so, he took off her saari and with an intention to outrage her modesty he started dragging her. On cries being raised by her, her daughter-in-law (PW-2) came there to intervene in the matter but the applicant did not spare her too and he filthily abused her and also threanted her of being killed. Even the husband of the victim namely Ramjivan was manhandled by the applicant when he came to the rescue of his wife – the prosecutrix herein. Even subsequently, the applicant kept on abusing the prosecutrix near her house. Thereafter, on the next day the report was lodged by the victim on the basis of which an offence under sections 354, 294 and 506 IPC was registered against the applicant and after investigation charge sheet was filed against him under the same Sections followed by framing of charge accordingly. Applicant however has denied the charge and sought to be tried.

Prosecution examined 05 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/applicant under Section 313 CrPC has also been recorded in which he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case.

Learned Magistrate by order dated 06.10.2009 convicted the accused/applicant under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for four months and pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for 15 days. Trial Court however acquitted the applicant of the charge under Sections 294 and 506-II IPC. On appeal being preferred by the present applicant, his conviction under section 354 IPC and the resultant sentence has been confirmed. Hence this revision.

Counsel for the applicant submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, the ingredients of Section 354 IPC are not attracted to the case in hand, and therefore the conviction of the applicant is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1), her daughter-in-law Indarmati (PW-2), her son Shravan Kumar (PW-3) and her husband Ramjivan (PW-5) is full of contradictions and omissions and therefore the Courts below have not been justified in basing its findings thereon and being so the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside by allowing this revision. Lastly, it is submitted that as the incident had taken place in the year 2006 and since then the applicant has been facing prosecution and that even when he was released on bail by this Court suspending the sentence imposed on him, he did not misuse the liberty, and in these circumstances the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that both the courts below have recorded a categorical finding regarding the act attributed to the applicant where he is said to tried to strip her naked and also filthily abused her. State counsel further submits that the applicant not only misbehaved with the prosecutrix, but also with her daughter-in-law (PW-2), and manhandled her husband Ramjivan (PW-5) when he came to her rescue. Thus in totality of the circumstances, the State counsel submits that the overall act of the applicant does not call for any leniency from this Court and the findings so recorded by the trial Court and then affirmed by the lower Appellate Court are fully justified warranting no interference herein.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned.

Perusal of the material available on record goes to show that both the courts below have been fully justified in recording a well reasoned finding holding the accused/applicant guilty under Section 354 IPC, and as the findings so recorded are based on the evidence of the victim (PW-1), her daughter-in-law (PW-2), son (PW-3) and husband (PW-5) and other material on record, this Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the judgment impugned as far as it relates to the conviction part thereof. Conviction of the applicant under Section 354 IPC is thus maintained.

The other submission of the counsel for the applicant is regarding the sentence part of the judgment impugned. While dealing with the question of sentence in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1977 SC 1926 it has been observed by the Apex Court as under:

“Western jurisdiction and 'sociologists, from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samual Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817 : "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested : 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it. George Micodotis, Director of Criminological Research Centre, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'Crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education.' It is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to anti -social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re-culturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore consider a therapeutic, rather than an in 'terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw : 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield : 'If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences.'”

As regards the case in hand, from the record it is apparent that the incident had taken place in the year 2006; the applicant has been facing long drawn prosecution since then, there is nothing to show that he ever flouted the order of suspension of sentence and grant of bail dated 15.2.2010 or in any manner he did anything detrimental to the society. Even when he was granted bail by the courts below, there is no report of any violation thereof by the applicant. Looking to all these circumstances and also taking support of the decision of the Apex court referred to above, this court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served in again sending the applicant to jail after such a considerable long time. Accordingly, the setnence imposed on the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, in lieu of reduction of sentence to the period already undergone, the fine amount is enhanced to Rs. 3,000/- from that of Rs. 100/- imposed by the Court below. Out of this enhanced amount, Rs. 2,500/- shall go to the victim as compensation in terms of Section 357 CrPC. Order accordingly. Let this amount be deposited in the Court below within a period of three months from today. If the applicant fails to deposit of this amount within the time stipulated, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one month.

Applicant is reported to be on bail and therefore his bail bonds stand discharged.

Copy of this order with record be sent back for necessary compliance.

Revision thus allowed in part.