HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 637 of 2014
Revisionist :- Siyaram
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Kushendra Kumar Singh Rathor
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned Counsel appearing for the State.
By means of instant revision, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 18.10.2014 passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Sitapur in Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2013 (Siyaram Vs. State of U.P.) by which the order dated 30.08.2013 passed by the Appellate Court has been confirmed whereby the revisionist was convicted and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 354 IPC and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, three months further rigorous imprisonment in Case No.506 of 2010 arising out of Case Crime No.222 of 2003, under Section 354 IPC, Police Station Imilia Sultanpur, District Sitapur.
Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on 31.08.2003 in Case Crime No.222 of 2003, under Section 354 IPC at Police Station Imilia Sultanpur, District Sitapur with the allegation that on 30.08.2003, when the daughter of the complainant had gone at 12:00 PM (day) near the sugarcane field of one Mr. Gulab Singh on nature call, the revisionist caught her and tried to molest but on seeing that the complainant and other persons are coming to the place of incident on hearing the noise of the victim, the accused run away from the place of incident. After conducting the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted under Section 354 IPC against the revisionist. Thereafter a Criminal Case No.506 of 2010 was instituted against the revisionist by the State in which the Additional Civil Judge (JD)/ Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Sitapur has found that the revisionist has committed offence under Section 354 IPC and vide order dated 30.08.2013, the revisionist was convicted and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 354 IPC and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default thereof, further rigorous imprisonment of three months. Against the order dated 30.08.2013, the revisionist has filed Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2013 before the learned Special Judge (EC Act), Sitapur, which has been dismissed vide order dated 18.10.2014 confirming the order dated 30.08.2013. Aggrieved by the orders dated 30.08.2013 and 18.10.2014, the revisionist filed the instant revision.
Learned Counsel appearing for the revisionist has submitted that the finding recorded by the courts below are based on surmises and conjectures. The Courts below have also not considered the fact that no role has been assigned to the revisionist by the prosecution and the medical report did not prove the offence against the revisionist.
Learned Counsel appearing for the revisionist has further submitted that the alleged incident was taken place in sugarcane field, which is outside the village and no one had seen the actual incident. He also submits that from the perusal of the evidence available on record, no case under Section 354 IPC is made out against the revisionist.
Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that both the courts below after consider the material available on record passed the orders and there are no illegality or irregularity in the same. Learned Counsel further submits that there is no error in appreciation of evidence on record. The scope of criminal revision filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is limited to the extent that whether any error in appreciation of evidence or not and from the perusal of both the orders, it reveals that there is no error in appreciation of evidence and both the courts below have correctly convicted the accused person.
I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
After perusal of the order dated 30.08.2013 by which the revisionist has been convicted under Section 354 IPC, shows that the court below has considered the statements of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 and other material evidence on record and found that there are sufficient material against the revisionist for conviction under Section 354 IPC. The Appellate Court has also recorded the finding that the learned court below after appreciating the entire evidence has rightly convicted the revisionist as there are sufficient evidence which shows that the revisionist has committed offence under Section 354 IPC.
The incident was taken place on 30.08.2003, which is about 16 years ago and as per the record available, the revisionist has already undergone sentence about one month. Hence considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction awarded by the court below is upheld. Sentence awarded by the court below is reduced as already undergone. The instant criminal revision is partly allowed.
The fine imposed by the court below was required to be paid and in case, the same is not paid by the revisionist, he is directed to pay the same, failing which, the revisionist has to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019