Jharkhand High Court
Firdosh Alam vs State Of Jharkhand on 28 January, 2022
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.661 of 2020
With
I.A. No.6015 of 2021
Firdosh Alam ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand ..... Opp. Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
Mr. Naiyar Eqbal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P
---------
The matter was taken up through Video
Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no
objection with it and submitted that the audio and video
qualities are good.
---------
08/Dated: 28th January, 2022
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present revision application has been filed against
the judgment dated 10.07.2020, passed by the court of
learned District & Additional Sessions Judge - II, Bokaro in
Criminal Appeal No.88 of 2019, whereby the judgment dated
12.04.2019, passed by the court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in Bermo P.S. Case
No.36 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No.258 of 2015
(Tr. No.125 of 2019), has been modified and the petitioner
has been convicted for the offence under Section 354(C) of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year and to pay the fine of Rs.5,000/-
and in default thereof, to further undergo S.I for three
months.
3. The prosecution story is that the revisionist has tried to
take photographs of the victim while she was defecating in a
toilet having no roof. The F.I.R has been lodged by the police
being Bermo P.S. Case No.36 of 2015 and after completing
the investigation the police filed the charge-sheet under
Sections 294, 354 and 354(C) of the Indian Penal Code and
the revisionist has been put to trial. In order to substantiate
the prosecution story, altogether five witnesses have been
examined by the prosecution. P.W - 1 is the uncle of the
victim, P.W.-2 is the father of the victim, P.W.-3 is the mother
of the victim, P.W.-4 is the victim herself and P.W. -5 is the
brother of the victim. P.Ws.-1, 2, 3 and 5 are the hearsay
witnesses and they have deposed on the basis of narration
made by P.W.-4, i.e., the victim herself. P.W.-4 has stated that
when she had gone to toilet, having no roof, for defecating at
about 11:00 P.M., in the night, she saw that the revisionist is
trying to capture her photographs through his mobile and on
raising alarm by her, the revisionist has escaped.
After completion of the trial, revisionist has been
acquitted from the charges under Sections 294 and 354 of
the I.P.C, but has been convicted under Section 354(C) of the
I.P.C and has been punished simple imprisonment for two
years along with fine, which has been reduced by the
appellate court to the minimum period of one year along with
fine upholding the conviction under Section 354(C) of the
I.P.C.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
revisionist that even if the allegation is taken to its face value
then also it is merely an attempt and the offence is not
complete and on that basis, prayer has been made for
reducing the sentencing part. It has been further submitted
while referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Lakhvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab &
Anr., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 763 that benefit of section 4
of the Probation of Offenders Act should be extended to the
accused as the minimum punishment is no bar.
It has further been submitted that the revisionist is a
good boy having no previous allegation and further he was
aged about 24 years at the time of commission of crime. He
has remained in custody for about six months. On the above
facts, the reduction of sentencing or giving benefit of Section
4 of the Probation of Offenders Act has been made.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P has opposed the
prayer and it has been submitted that the revisionist had at
least seen the victim while she was defecating and as such
the offence under Section 354 (C) of the I.P.C is complete and
no leniency is required in the matter.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that
there is no allegation of watching the victim rather it has
been alleged by the victim that the revisionist had attempted
to capture her photographs through mobile and as per the
allegation itself, it is merely an attempt and the revisionist
had not succeeded in taking photographs. Further, the victim
has not made the allegation of watching. Thus, at the best the
ingredients of attempt of committing crime of Section 354(C)
is made out. There is enough material to sustain the
conviction under Section 354(C) read with Section 511 of the
I.P.C.
In view of the above discussion and considering the fact
that the revisionist is a young boy having no previous
allegation and he is a neighbour and has remained in custody
for about six months, this Court upholds the conviction under
Section 354(C) read with with Section 511 of the I.P.C, but the
sentencing part is reduced to the period already undergone
by the revisionist. Further, the fine amount and the default
clause as imposed by the trial court will remain as it is.
7. With the above modification in the sentencing part of
the impugned judgment, the revision application stands
disposed of.
8. I.A. No.6015 of 2021 also stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
