Narayan Das son of Rusan Das, resident of Village- Charpa, P.O. +P.S.-Madhupur, District-Deoghar … v. ….. ……Opposite Party For the
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision. No. 27 of 2017 Narayan Das son of Rusan Das, resident of Village- Charpa, P.O. +P.S.-Madhupur, District-Deoghar …… Petitioner The State of Jharkhand Versus ….. ……Opposite Party For the Petitioners : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P ---------- PRESENT
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ----- JUDGMENT C.A.V. On 13.05.2024 Pronounced On: 17 .05.2024 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State. 2. The instant Criminal Revision is directed against the Order dated 04.10.2016 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge has been pleased to dismiss the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.02.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhupur in G.R. No. 111 of 2008 corresponding to T.R. No. 640 of 2014 arising out of Madhupur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2008 by which the petitioner was found guilty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence for Rigorous Imprisonment for two years. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on the basis of complaint lodged by one Manisha Surin Madhupur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2008, dated 22.02.2008 was registered for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner. 4. It is alleged that petitioner was a cook in Kasturbagandhi girls residential school, Madhupur and when four students had gone to help in cooking then present petitioner had caught her hand and leg and also touched her cheeks and used some vulgar language in outraging her modesty. The petitioner was chargesheeted and proceeded in the trial of the case denying the charges leveled against him and after conclusion of trial the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, vide order dated 17.02.2014 hold the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years. Petitioner preferred an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2014 before the learned Session Judge, Deoghar which was also dismissed on merits and impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence of the petitioner was upheld and confirmed which has been assailed in this Revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that both the court below have failed to properly appreciate that the FIR was not lodged by the victim girl rather the school staffs and teachers were not satisfied with the work of the petitioner as cook and falsely 2 Cr. Revision. No. 27 of 2017 implicated him in this case. The learned trial court as well as appellate court failed to consider the material contradiction appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses who are either students or the school staffs and teachers. The FIR was lodged after considerable delay without offering any valid explanation. It is submitted that touching of cheeks or leg of the victim in course of helping in the cooking cannot be said to be intentional or with indulge to that such act may be likely to outrage the modesty of a women and for such trivial issue petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for severe punishment for two years R.I. In the alternative the petitioner also pleaded that even it is assumed that he has committed any crime, it was his first offence and petitioner has no criminal background or on previous occasion also he has never attempted or indulged in such activities as leveled against him, hence, petitioner may be extended the benefit of Section 4 Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 which has been declined by both the court below without recording any special reasons rather it is simply observed that offence committed by the petitioner is very serious and heinous in nature, hence, he could not be extended the benefits of provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Therefore, impugned Judgment and Order is fit to be set aside allowing this Revision. 3 Cr. Revision. No. 27 of 2017 6. On the other hand, learned APP has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of petitioner and submitted that there is no legal force in the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner in touching the cheeks of student and catching her leg while she was helping the petitioner in making bread is self-sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The victim girl has been examined as a witness and she has specifically justified about the aforesaid facts committed with her and other students have also corroborated her testimony since the occurrence was happened in the school and legal formality for initiation of proceeding through proper channel was necessary, hence, there was some delay in institution of FIR that cannot give any premium to the petitioner or sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution story. There is no legal defence in the statement under Section 313 Cr.p.c. of the petitioner, hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the concurrent findings of the court bellows in recording conviction and sentence of the petitioner. So far extension of benefit under Section 4 Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is concerned that may be dealt with in the circumstances of the case and appropriate order may be passed. 7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, points of arguments raised on behalf of petitioner and learned APP for the State, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment and orders on merit. 4 Cr. Revision. No. 27 of 2017 So far alternative plea of the petitioner is concerned it appears that it was first offence of the petitioner and in the circumstances, it might by non-intentional but was likely to outrage the modesty of a women. The petitioner has been sentenced with excessive punishment of imprisonment. The occurrence is of the year 2008 since then petitioner has suffered the agony of trial about 15 years and it is also not disputed that it is the first offence of petitioner and he has no criminal background and never committed any offence. Hence, considering the age, antecedent, character and the nature of offence committed by the convict/petitioner, it appears expedient in the interest of justice to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned trial court within three month from the date of this order and if he so appears the petitioner shall be released on furnishing probation bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with one surety under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 with condition to maintain peace and be of good behavior for a period of one year from the date of furnishing the bond to the satisfaction of learned trial court instead of undergoing the substantive sentence of imprisonment as awarded by the learned trial court. In case of violation of the terms and condition of the bond the petitioner shall be called upon to serve the rest of the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him. 5 Cr. Revision. No. 27 of 2017 8. Accordingly, this Revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above. 9. Let the copy of this Order along with trial court record be sent immediately to the concerned court for information and needful. Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date: 17 / 05 /2024 Rajnish/- N.A.F.R. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 6 Cr. Revision. No. 27 of 2017