IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1704/2017.
Kharka S/o Shri Dhannaram B/c Rajnat, R/o Indra
Colony Fatehpur, Tehsil Fatehpur Distt. Sikar. (at
Present Confined in Distt. Jail Sikar)
State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
For Petitioner : Shri V.S. Jakhar
For State : Shri R.R. Gurjar, P.P.
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Judgment / Order
Respondent No.2 had faced trial alongwith his co-
accused Mahendra in FIR No. 6/2004 registered at Police
Station Kotwali Fatehpur, District Sikar for the offence
under Section 354/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). Trial Court vide
judgment/order dated 16.6.2009 ordered the conviction
and sentence of the petitioner and his co-accused under
Section 354 IPC. Appeal filed by the petitioner was
dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated
27.6.2015. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
co-accused Mahendra had preferred an appeal and the
Appellate Court vide order dated 19.4.2014 had held that
no offence under Section 354 IPC could be said to be made
out in the facts and circumstances of the present case and
ordered the conviction of co-accused Mahendra under
Section 352 IPC and granted him benefit of probation.
Similar allegations have been levelled against the
petitioner. Hence, the conviction of the petitioner was also
liable to be converted under Section 352 IPC. Petitioner
who is in custody for the last three months be also
convicted under Section 352 IPC and be sentenced to the
period already undergone by him.
Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has
opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for
As per the prosecution story petitioner alongwith his
co-accused Mahendra and Vakil had misbehaved with the
victim and told her to leave the spot. While altering the
conviction of co-accused Mahendra from Section 354 IPC
to Section 352 IPC Appellate Court in its order dated
19.4.2014 (in appeal filed by co-accused Mahendra) had
noticed that victim in her cross-examination had admitted
that she had not suffered any injury nor her clothes had
been torn. In-fact, she had been rescued by Dalip before
the accused could inflict any injury on her person. Learned
Appellate Court had held that it could be said to be a case
of use of criminal force by the accused but could not be
said to be a case of use of criminal force with an intention
to outrage the modesty of the victim.
Since in an appeal filed by co-accused Mahendra his
conviction has been altered from Section 354 IPC to
Section 352 IPC, petitioner is also liable to be extended the
Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner is altered
from Section 354 IPC to Section 352 IPC. Petitioner is in
custody for the last about three months. Consequently,
petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment already
undergone by him. Petitioner who is in custody be set at
liberty forthwith, if not required in any other criminal case.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.