IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 712/2017.
Smt. Mamta Verma W/o Shri Gajendra Kumar Verma B/c
Kumawat, Aged About 40 Years, R/o House No.76, Nandpuri
Colony, Hawa Sadak, Sodala, Jaipur.
1. Narendra Kumar Verma S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Verma B/c
Kumawat, R/o House No.76, Nandpuri Colony, Hawa Sadak,
2. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
For Petitioner : Ms. Neelam Khandelwal
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Judgment / Order
Respondent No. 1 had faced trial for the offence
punishable under Section 323, 341, 354 and 509 Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). Trial Court vide
judgment/order dated 24.5.2013 ordered the conviction and
sentence of respondent No.1 under Section 341, 323, 354, 509
IPC. In an appeal filed by the respondent No.1, appellate Court
ordered acquittal of respondent No.1 under Section 354 and
maintained his conviction under Section 323, 341 and 509 IPC.
Appellate Court granted benefit of probation to the respondent
No.1. Hence, the present petition by the complainant.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
Respondent No.1 is the younger brother of the husband
of the petitioner. Matrimonial litigation is pending between the
petitioner and her in-laws family. Appellate Court after going
through the evidence on record held that no offence under
Section 354 IPC could be said to have been committed by
respondent No.1. In-fact, on account of matrimonial litigation
pending between the parties, petitioner had levelled allegation
against the respondent No.1 that he had torn her clothes with a
view to outrage her modesty but the said allegation was not
established on record. It has been noticed by the Appellate
Court that, although, petitioner had stated in her examination-
in-chief that respondent No.1 had tried to outrage her modesty
and had thrown her on the floor but in her cross-examination
she had stated that when her father-in-law reached the spot,
she was standing on the road. Further, it was not established on
record that the lock of the door had been broken. Hence, the
allegation that respondent No.2 after breaking the lock had
entered the house was not established.
The reasons given by the Appellate Court, while ordering
acquittal of respondent No.2 qua charge framed against him
under Section 354 IPC, are sound reasons. Appellate Court
maintained conviction of respondent No.1 under Section 323,
341 and 509 IPC as ordered by the trial court. Keeping in view
the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Appellate
Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction while granting benefit of
probation to respondent No.1. In the facts and circumstances of
the present case, no ground for interference by this court, while
exercising revisional jurisdiction, is made out.