CRI?yffNAL REVISIONNO. 4; 2-0 v. State ofChhattisgarh Ifarou^i Dist

Shri Awadh Tripathl, counsel for tte appNGant. Shri S.R.J.Jaiswat, P.L. for the State. CRISyilNAL REVtSION UNDER SECTiON 397/401 OP Cr.P.C. JUDQMENT r26.11.2912S ; The present revision arises out of impugned judgment and order dated 26.02.2002 passed by First Ad^itional Sessrons Judge, Raigarh In Cr. A. No. 259/1998 whereby the leamed appellate Court beiow has affirmed the convlction of the accused/applicant as awarded by the Chief Judiciaj Magistrate, Raigarh vide its judgment dated 7.12.98 in Cr. Case No. 1261/96 for the offence punishable under Secllon 354 of the iPC and sentenced him to undergo RS forthree months and to pay fine of Rs. 500, Sn defauit of payment of fine to firther undergo rlgorous Imprisonment for one month. Facts of the case in brief are ttet on 19.10.96, wrstten report 2. (Ex.P-1) was lodged foy prosecutrix (PW-1) a coliege teoturer alleging that on that day v^ien she was returning from the coillege, n^r Saktigudi chowk accused/applicant came there, caught hold of her hand and asked her to go with him or else he would kill her on aecourrt ofwhich she raisedalarm. She has alteged that upon hearing her cries, Bunty Chopra, Upendra Gautam, Tapan Ghosh and others came and rescued her. Based on this written report, FIR (Ex.P-2) was regi^ered the accused/applicant under Sections 354 and 506-B IPC. agalnst After investjgation challan was fiterf on 30.10.96 under thesame sections.

!n order to establish the guilt of the accused, prosecutlon has the acaiseci/appiicant wsas examined 6 witnesses. Statement of recorded under Section 313 ofthe Cr.P.C. charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence anct implication in the case. in which he denied the

After hearing the parties, vide its jiKlgmerrt dated 7.12.98 passed in Cr. Case No. 1261/96 the trtal Magistrate has convicted the appltoant for the offence punishable under Sedions 354 and 506-B iPC. In appeal, the appellate Court has though acquitted the applicant under Section 506-B IPC but affirmed his convtetion und®-Sedton 354 the sentence has been reduced to rigorous IPC. However, imprisonment for 3 months fpom tiat of one year, with payinent of ftne of Rs. 500, plus default stipulation. Hence the present revision. Counsel for the applteant submts that a very improbabte story 5. has been put forth by the prosecution and that the applteant has b^n falsely implicated due to some old enmity and statement of the prosecutrix is not reliable. It has be^i further atigyed that the incident had taken place in the year 1096 and the ai^alicant is a canoer patient and therefore ienient view be taken against him. On the other hand it has been argued by Shri Jaiswat, State 6. counsel that in the present case though the convictipn of the appiicant has been affirmed by theappellate Court on 26.2.2002 but till date the applicant has not surrendered. He submits that untess the applicant surrenders before the court below, revision is not maintainabte. The fact that the applicant has not surrendered and the revision was filed without surrender ofthe applicant, is not disputed by Shri Tripathl. Shri Jaiswal further submits that statement of the prosasutrlx is fully rejiable and iooking to the dare devit act commltted by the applicant he cannot be entitled for any lenieney. He further submite that (39' the appellate Court has atready taken a lenient view white reducing ttro sentence of the applteant and therefore in the prssent revislon no interference be calted for.

Heard counset for the parties and perused the material avaiSabte on record. Prosecutrix (PW-1) in her court statement has stated that on 19.10.96, when she was returning from her coltege, near Saktigudi chowk, accused/appiicant caught hoid of her hand, askeci h@r to 90 along with him and threatened her of life. She has alleged that after hearing the cries number of persons gathered there and she was rescued by Bunty Chopra, Upendra Gautam, Tapan Ghosh and others. On reaching home she intormed the incident to her parents and brother and then report was lodged. in cross-examinatton she remained very firm and nothing couid be eiicited from her. Jitendra Chopra @ Bunty (PW-2), Upendra Singh Gautam (PW-3) and Tapan Ghosh (PW-S) &ye w'rtnesses to the tncident have supported the proseoutloncase. Pankaj the prosecutrbc has stated that he was Joshi informed by Sanat that accusQd/appellarrt had teased his sister and (PW-4) brother of when he reached his house, entire incident was narrated to htm by hts father and then the report was iodged. Sadhna Singh (PW-^ Investjgating Offieer, on the basis of written report has reconded FIR (Ex.P-2). Minute examinatson of the evidence makes it dear that on the 8. date of jncident i.e. 19.10.96. prosecutrix was caught hold of by the accused/applicant near Saktigudi chowk and her stat^nent is du!y supported by Jjtendra Chopra @ Bunty (PW-2), Upendra Singh Gautam (PW-3) and Tapan Ghosh (PW-^). Statement of prosecutrix appears to be trustworthyand inspires oonfidence of fiis Court on the basis of which the applicant can be convteted. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of this wftness. In these drcumstances, the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below cannot be interfered with. ^^wls^ y:i^ \ '^/ \ ^-•%ys^ Considering the entire evidence available on record, this court is 9. of the firm view that the flnding recorded by the trial Court convicting the accused/appllcant under SectSon 354 IPCwhich have been dufy affirmed by the lowerappeltate Court by judgment impugned, are fully justified and no interference is warranted therewith. Th@ revision faite and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge