IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.974 of 2018
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- BHAGALPUR
Julesh Kumar Singh @ Nishu Son of Arvind Singh resident of Village- Udhadih,
P.S. Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur.
…. …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
…. …. Respondent
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha with Mr. Mrityunjay
Kumar Mishra, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar -I
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 17-09-2018
The revision application is directed against the order dated
4.7.2018 passed by Sri Ram Shreshtha Roy, Sessions Judge,
Bhagalpur in Cr.Appeal No. 43 of 2018, whereby and whereunder he
has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of limitation
which has been preferred against the order dated 11.4.2017 passed by
Sri Sagir Alam, A.C.J.M.-V, Bhagalpur in connection with Sultanganj
P.S.Case No. 70 of 2009, corresponding to G.R.No.1332 of 2009, by
which the appellant-petitioner has been convicted for the offences
under Sections 341, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section
341 IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one year and fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 354 IPC and a fine of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.974 of 2018 dt.17-09-2018
2/4
Rs.2000/- under Section 506 IPC and in default of payment of fine the
appellant-petitioner was directed to suffer further rigorous
imprisonment for 15 days and sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
2. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
appellate court has dismissed the appeal only on the ground of
limitation and learned trial court by a cryptic order without
considering that there is no evidence under Section 354 IPC available
on record has convicted the appellant-petitioner under Sections 341,
354 and 506 IPC, including fine with default clause, as stated above.
3. Heard learned counsel for the State also.
4. It appears that a case has been lodged by PW 4 Shiv Priya
Kumari stating that on 30.4.2009 at about 11.30 A.M. when she was
going to cast her vote, at some distance from her house, the petitioner
abused her and threatened to shoot her and earlier also he has
committed same kind of offence but due to intervention of respectable
persons the matter was pacified. On the basis of aforesaid written
report Sultanganj P.S.Case No. 70 of 2009 dated 1.5.2009 under
Sections 341, 354 and 506 IPC was registered against the petitioner
and after investigation charge sheet was submitted and cognizance of
the offence was also taken against the petitioner. During trial the
prosecution has examined altogether four witnesses, they are PW 1
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.974 of 2018 dt.17-09-2018
3/4
Rukmini Devi, mother of informant, PW 2 Sanjay Kumar Singh, PW
3 Vimal Kumar Singh has been declared hostile and PW 4 is
informant Shiv Priya Kumari. From perusal of trial court judgment it
appears that PW 4 (informant) has reiterated the allegation made in
her written report and stated that petitioner has abused and threatened
to shoot her and except that there is no such allegation against the
petitioner. So far Section 354 IPC is concerned, which provides as
follows :
“Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to
outrage her modesty. – Whoever assaults or uses
criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage
or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby
outrage her modesty, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both.”
And according to that whoever assaults or outrages modesty
of any woman but in the present case there is absolutely nothing in the
evidence of PW 4 to show that petitioner has assaulted her and
outraged her modesty and in the facts and circumstances it appears
that no case under Section 354 IPC is made out against the petitioner
and learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal only on the
ground of limitation.
5. In such view of the matter, the conviction of the appellant-
petitioner under Section 354 IPC does not appear to be sustainable in
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.974 of 2018 dt.17-09-2018
4/4
the eye of law. So far conviction under Sections 341 and 506 IPC is
concerned, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
petitioner has remained in custody for more than one month.
6. Accordingly, this revision application is partly allowed.
Conviction of the petitioner under Section 354 IPC is set aside. So far
conviction and sentence under Sections 341 and 506 IPC are
concerned, no interference is required as petitioner has remained in
custody for more than one month.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J)
spal/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 20.9.2018
Transmission 20.9.2018
Date
