Sanjay Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1177 Jhar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     (Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
                Criminal Revision No.37 of 2015
                              --------

Sanjay Kumar Sinha, s/o Brij Bhushan Prasad, r/o Sundar Pahari, PO & PS-Tundi, Dist.-Dhanbad ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Smt. Lata Devi, w/o Rajendra Pd. Sao, r/o vill-Sundar Pahari, Tundi, Dist.-Dhanbad ... Opposite Parties

(Through V.C)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP For O.P No.2 : None

--------

Order No.12/Dated: 25th March 2022

Mr. Ashok Kumar, the learned APP appears for the State.

2. As would appear from the judgment of the trial Court no one appeared for the complainant when the matter was posted for arguments. In the present proceeding also inspite of service of notice the complainant has not put her appearance. Mr. Kumar Nilesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 4th February 2015 of this Court a copy of the order was sent to the complainant through registered post and Mukhiya of village Sundar Pahari has personally served a copy of the order upon the complainant.

3. The petitioner was convicted under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to SI for 9 months by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad by judgment dated 6 th September 2011 passed in C.P Case No.225 of 2003 corresponding to T.R. No.870 of 2011.

4. Criminal Appeal No.217 of 2011 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide judgment dated 12th November 2014.

5. In the present criminal revision petition, Mr. Kumar Nilesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a contention that mere holding of hand of a lady without any 2 Criminal Revision No.37 of 2015

intention to outrage or knowledge that it would be likely that he will thereby outrage modesty of the lady the offence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.

6. During the trial in T.R No.870 of 2011, the complainant who is the victim lady examined five witnesses to support the charge under sections 354 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant who examined herself as PW4 stated in her evidence in the Court that when she objected to the accused persons collecting fish from the pond the petitioner caught her hand and snatched the gold chain. The other witnesses have deposed in the Court that on hearing hulla by the complainant they went near the pond and saw the petitioner holding hand of the complainant. The learned trial Judge acquitted Munni Devi of the charge framed under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, however, the petitioner was held guilty for committing the offence under section 354 of the Indian penal Code.

7. The learned trial Judge has held as under:

"As regards offence u/s. 354 of the Indian penal Code there is consistent evidence. PW-1 Rajendra Prasad Saw in Para- 1, PW-2 Vishwanath Saw in Para-1, PW-3 in Para-1 and PW-4 Lata Devi in Para-2 have stated that the accused Sanjay Kumar Sinha caught hold of the hand of complainant with an intention to outrage her modesty. All of them are the eyewitnesses. PW-5 Rooplal Soren has stated nothing about outraging the modesty. But, otherwise he has corroborated the case of the complainant. Thus, I find that though there are minor contradictions in the deposition all these witnesses with respect to the offence of outraging of modesty which is not very much very significant. I further find that DW-1 and DW-2 have stated nothing on this point. The deposition of DW-2 Sanjay Kumar Sinha remained unchallenged. Except for the fact that the accused persons have alleged that there is enmity no document in this respect has been brought on record, though they have stated orally about this. Thus, from the foregoing analysis I find that there is sufficient evidence in respect of offence u/s.354 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. The appellate Court took note of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and came to a finding that all the witnesses except PW5 have seen the petitioner holding hand of complainant to outrage her modesty.

9. The discussion in the appellate Court's judgment proceeds in the following manner:

"22. The ld. Lawyer for the appellant has argued that under the facts of this case section 354 IPC is not attracted. If a man is accused of placing his hand over the private part of a lady the 3 Criminal Revision No.37 of 2015

person would be guilty of the commission of offence u/s 354 IPC but the same is not appears to me convicting as all the witnesses have categorically stated that appellant caught hold hand of Lata Rani complainant of this case with an intention to outrage her modesty. To constitute an offence under section 354 IPC the following essentials must be proved:

I) The assault must be on a woman.

II) The accused must have used criminal force on her. III) The criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty.

After going through the statement of PW's it is clear that appellant used criminal force upon the complainant Smt. Lata Devi with an intention to outrage her modesty.

The ld. Lawyer has also pointed out that witnesses are related to each other, being relative they are highly interest witnesses. It is true that PW1 is husband of the complainant and PW2 and 3 are his relatives but relationship does not affects the credibility of a witness and statement of any witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that they are relatives to each other. In this case all the above PW's are the eye witnesses of the case and they have narrated the sequence of the incidence in their examination.

23. On perusal of the evidence of PW's there appears that they all have seen the occurrence by their own eyes. The complainant's statement have been corroborated by these witnesses. They all except PW5 have stated that appellant caught hold hand of complainant to outrage her modesty.

24. On above discussions, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge punishable u/s 354 IPC. There is no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the Court below. The judgment passed by the court below does not suffers from any infirmity. As such, the ld. Lower Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the charge punishable u/s 354 IPC. As such, the impugned judgment passed by the ld. Court below is upheld. Accordingly this Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed."

10. The lower Court records have been produced and I have gone through the deposition of the witnesses. In her examination- in-chief, PW4 nowhere states that the petitioner held her hand with an intention to outrage her modesty. The defence in order to substantiate its case that PW4 had filed a false case elicited from her in the cross-examination that in the complaint she has made allegations of outraging her modesty, but, as noticed above, there is nothing in her evidence in the Court as regards outraging her modesty. I further find that there were series of litigations between the parties which the witnesses have admitted in the Court. The petitioner who examined himself in his defence gave details of the land comprising the pond and claimed that the pond belongs to him. The complainant also claimed in the Court that the pond belongs to her but she failed to give any detail about the land pertaining to the said pond or any detail about the pond.

11. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that 4 Criminal Revision No.37 of 2015

the Courts below committed serious errors in law in ignoring vital materials which were brought on record by the parties and, above all, the evidence tendered by the complainant does not constitute the essential ingredients for the offence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

12. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and the order of sentence of SI for 9 months, both dated 6 th September 2011, against the petitioner passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Dhanbad in C.P Case No.225 of 2003 as upheld by the learned appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.217 of 2011 are set-aside.

13. The petitioner is discharged of the liability of the bail-bonds furnished by him in C.P Case No.225 of 2003.

14. Criminal Revision No.37 of 2015 is allowed.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Amit/