Gatti vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The applicant has filed this criminal revision being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Hatta, District Damoh in Criminal Appeal No. 10011/2016 whereby while confirming the conviction and amount of fine imposed on the applicant, reduced the custodial sentence from 1 year R.I. to 6 months R.I. vide judgment  dated 18.12.2015 passed by the JMFC, Hatta, District Damoh in Criminal Case No. 1120/2013.

Case of the prosecution against the applicant was that prosecutrix (P.W.-1) lodged a report in Police Station Kumhari stating therein that on 09.06.2013 she was lying on bed, the applicant came near her and touched her breast. When she objected pressed her neck, at that juncture, her son and daughter-in-law came on spot, he fled away from the spot. Prosecutrix lodged report in Police Station Kumhari which was registered as Crime No. 38/2013. After investigation charge-sheet came to be filed before the JMFC Hatta, District Damoh. Learned JMFC Court tried the case as warrant trial framed the charge against the applicant and recorded his plea in which he abjured his quilt. Recorded the statement of the prosecutrix (P.W.-1), her son Gangaram (P.W.-2), her daughter-in-law Kailash Rani (P.W.-3), Kanoo (P.W.-4), Nonelal (P.W.-6) and Investigating Officer, I.P. Tiwari (P.W.-5). Applicant, in his defence, stated that he has falsely been implicated by the prosecutrix. During pendency of trial, both parties compromised together and filed an application under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. The offence for which the appellant has been charged, is non compoundable. Learned JMFC Court dismissed the application for compromise and after hearing both parties delivered a judgment on 18.12.2015 thereby convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations. Being aggrieved by that judgement of conviction and order of sentence, the applicant has filed an appeal, registered as Cr.A. No. 10011/2016 before the Appellate Court. Learned Appellate Court after hearing both parties, delivered a judgment dated 20.03.2018 thereby affirmed the conviction passed under Section 354 of the IPC and reduced the sentence from 1 year R.I. to 6 months R.I.

Being aggrieved by that judgment, the applicant has filed this criminal revision on the ground that the findings of both the Courts below are bad in law. The evidence adduced by the prosecution, not appreciated in proper perspective. Prosecution has failed to prove his case beyond doubt. Court has not extended the benefit of doubt to the applicant, therefore, prays for acquittal of the applicant from the charge of the offence.

Learned  Government Advocate  opposes  the prayer.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and order passed by the Courts below.

Prosecutrix (P.W.-1) stated that in the morning at 04:00 AM she was sleeping in courtyard, the applicant came and pressed her breast, she asked who are you, then he caught hold her by neck. Suddenly, the daughter-in-law, who is the wife of her son Gangaram awoke and applicant went a side and hide himself, then prosecutrix ran away from the spot. She narrated the all story to the Sarpanch. He directed her to lodge report, then she went to Police Station along with her son Gangaram and lodged a report (Ex.P-1). Prosecution declared hostile this witness and asked leading questions. She admitted that the applicant pressed her breast and trying to molest her and threatened her to kill. But in her cross-examination, she admitted that when she fled away from the spot, her son started beating the applicant. She admitted that the applicant use to meet her on the field, but he never uttered any wrong word. She admitted that after pressing her neck, the applicant did not utter anything and she also admitted that when the family members awoke, then applicant went away from the spot.

Gangaram (P.W.-2) who is the son of the prosecutrix, stated that on the date of incident, his mother (prosecutrix) lying in the courtyard and this witness was sleeping in another room. Applicant Gatti in the influence of liquor came in the courtyard and pressed the neck of his mother. On screaming, these witnesses reached near the mother and mother went away from the spot. This witness and his mother (prosecutrix) went to complaining to the Lamberdar, the applicant remained in the courtyard. In para 6 he categorically stated that he saw the applicant for pressing the neck of his mother.

Kailash Rani (P.W.-3) who was daughter-in-law of the prosecutrix denied for the all facts, turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Later on, the prosecutrix compromised with the applicant.

On perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix (P.W.-1), Gangaram (P.W.-2), the applicant in the early hours of the morning got entered inside the house and went near the prosecutrix where she was sleeping and touched the prosecutrix, at that time, he was under the influence of alcohol. Applicant has not explained anything why he entered in the house of prosecutrix and touched the prosecutrix when she was lying in the courtyard. This is the sufficient material against the applicant for conviction of the applicant under Section 354 of the IPC. This Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction should not deeply consider the evidence, but there is sufficient evidence for conviction of the applicant for the alleged offence.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has suffered the whole sentence imposed against him and he also deposited the fine amount. Learned Appellate Court sentenced the applicant for six months R.I., this is not a harsh punishment and this Court seems it proportionate.

Considering the all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that conviction and sentence passed by the Appellate Court is not liable to be interfered with, hence, this revision deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

A copy of this revision be send to the trial Court. If the applicant serves out the whole custodial sentence and not required in any case, he be released forthwith.