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.

Versus

1. Narendra Kumar Verma S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Verma B/c
Kumawat, R/o House No.76, Nandpuri Colony, Hawa Sadak,
Sodala, Jaipur.
2. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

For Petitioner : Ms. Neelam Khandelwal

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Judgment / Order

2/1/2018

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.

Dismissed.

(SABINA)J.

Mrg./34