Ravi Shankar @ Bunty vs State of Madhya Pradesh

This criminal revision has been filed under Section 397 / 401 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, being aggrieved by the judgment dated

28.7.2014 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in Criminal

Appeal No.6/2013 arising out of order dated 23.1.2013 passed by the

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Harda in Criminal Case No.250/2012, appeal

was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Harda.

Learned trial Court after relying the testimony of prosecutrix

(PW-1) in corroboration of her sister Pooja (PW-2) and Poonam (PW-3)

convicted and applicant for the offence punishable under Section 354 of

the IPC and imposed the sentence for six month R.I. with fine of

Rs.1,000/-

The lower appellate Court also affirmed the findings of learned

trial Court. Learned trial Court did not agree with the defence contention of

the applicant, that the evidence produced by the prosecution was

contradictory and no material contradiction has been found in the evidence

of the prosecutrix and other witnesses. The prosecutrix had no enmity

with the applicant/accused.

The suggestion given by learned counsel for the applicant with

regard to old enmity has not been accepted by any of above witness. No

defence witness has been examined on behalf of the applicant/accused

before the trial Court. This Court has not found any property dispute or

old rivalry between the parties for which the applicant could have been

falsely implicated by the prosecutrix or her family members. Thus, the

conviction and sentence of the applicant/accused was based on proper

evidence available on record. This Court has not found any illegality or

perversity in the findings of learned Courts below. Even though, Pooja

(PW-2) and Poonam (PW-3) are the interested witnesses but law does not

prohibit reliance upon the evidence of closely relative witnesses. It is highly

improbable that related witnesses would screen and spare real assailants

and falsely enrope appellants.

In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sanjay

Kumar [AIR 2017 SC 845], the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that :

"It is well settled that the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict the accused. No doubt, her testimony has to inspire confidence. Seeking corroboration to a statement before relying upon the same as a rule, in such cases, would literally amount to adding insult to injury. Her

evidence can be acted upon without corroboration. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness does."

Thus, the evidence of prosecutrix was cogent and consistent

that the accused caught hold of her neck and sat on her chest and

strangled her with the intention to outrage her modesty. Hence, the

applicant has rightly been convicted and sentenced by learned courts

below.

Therefore, the findings of the learned Courts below are not

perverse or erroneous. The sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court is

found according to offence and not excessive. Thus, in view of the

aforesaid discussions, this Court finds no ground for interference in the

judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the

impugned order passed by the learned Courts below is hereby affirmed.

The applicant is directed to surrender before the trial Court for undergoing

the remaining jail sentence immediately.

Accordingly, this criminal revision stands dismissed.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information

and compliance.