AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
18 paragraphs · 387 wordsThe applicant has been convicted concurrently by the trial Court as well as by the appellate Court for committing offence under Sections 354 and
457 of the IPC. While the trial Court had awarded sentence of RI for one year and fine of Rs.200/- for each of the offence, the appellate Court
reduced the sentence to RI for 3 months and enhanced the fine amount to Rs.500/- for each of the offence.
The applicant has committed the house breaking in the night in order to commit offence of outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix, as he entered
the house of the prosecutrix at about 9 pm on 16.9.2004 and outraged her modesty by catching hold of her hands and tearing the blouse.
The FIR was lodged on the next day of the offence, therefore, there is no delay in lodging the FIR. The prosecutrix, who was examined as PW-1,
has stood firm in her deposition and her statement is duly supported by her husband Tekeshwar Nayak (PW-2). The prosecution case is also
supported by Ranjit (PW-3) and Fannilal (PW-4), who are neighbours. After committing the offence, the applicant tried to flee during which his Lungi
was snatched by husband of the prosecutrix, which was recovered in course of investigation and has been proved by (PW-5) Jalendhar.
Having examined the evidence, I am not convinced with the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant that the finding of guilt suffers
from any perversity. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution have fully supported the version of the prosecutrix. Therefore, the applicant's
conviction for both the offences is maintained.
The applicant has remained in jail for about one day during trial and from 25.9.2006 to 10.11.2006 during the pendency of the present Revision
Application. Thus, he has already undergone one and half months of jail sentence. Considering the fact that the offence has taken place about 12
years back and the applicant has already suffered half of the jail sentence awarded by the appellate Court, ends of justice would be served if the
sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.
In the result, the Revision is allowed in part. The applicant's conviction under Sections 354 and 457 of the IPC is maintained, however, sentence is
modified to the period already undergone.