Balkrashna Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 5751 MP

                                                        1
                 IN         THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                            AT GWALIOR
                                              BEFORE
                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                           ON THE 10 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                      CRIMINAL REVISION No. 913 of 2023

               BETWEEN:-
               BALKRASHNA LODHI S/O MUNGARAM LODHI, AGED
               ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KEDAR POLICE
               STATION BHONTI DISTT. SHIVPURI (MADHYA
               PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
               (BY SHRI MAYANK BAJPAI- ADVOCATE )

               AND
               THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
               STATION PICHHORE DISTT. SHIVPURI (MADHYA
               PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENT
               (BY SMT. PADAMSHRI AGRAWAL- PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE )

                           Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
               following:
                                                         ORDER

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 21.2.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore, Distt. Shivpuri, in Criminal Appeal No.73/2018 affirming the judgment dated 10.8.2018 passed by the JMFC, Pichhore, Distt. Shivpuri, in RCT No.300958/2016 convicting the petitioner under Section 354 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo 1 year RI with fine of Rs.200/-. Signature Not Verified Prosecution case in brief is that on 8.7.2016 prosecutrix submitted a Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD written complaint at police Station that today at 2.40 pm when she was returning Signing time: 11-04-2023 10:47:08 AM

after attending the Court proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., at bus stand she met with petitioner Balkrishna who with bad intention caught hold of her hand. When she screamed, one Sanjeev came and intervened in the matter. On her complaint, crime No.403/2016 was registered at police Station, Pichhore. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. After trial, petitioner was convicted & sentenced as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal, which was dismissed by the appellate Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the prosecution rests on the typed complaint lodged by the prosecutrix, but neither the person, who typed the complaint (Ex.P/1), nor the Head Constable, who on the basis of

typed complain lodged the report (Ex.P/2) bearing crime No.403/16, have been examined. It is further submitted that prosecutrix (PW-1) during cross- examination has stated that she cannot say as to what has been written in the complaint. Independent witness Sanjeev (PW-3) has not supported the prosecution case. Despite this, trial Court as well as appellate Court have convicted the petitioner for the aforesaid offence.

Learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment by submitted that no illegality has been committed by the Courts below.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the written complaint (Ex.P/1) of the prosecutrix, it is quite clear that incident is of 8.7.2016 when she was returning to her house after attending the court proceedings. At bus stand petitioner met her and caught hold of her hand with bad intention. When she screamed, Sanjeev came on the spot and saved her. The petitioner thereafter went away by threatening her. Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD As per the evidence of prosecutrix (PW-1), petitioner met her at bus Signing time: 11-04-2023 10:47:08 AM stand and caught hold of her hand with bad intention. On her scream, Sanjeev

(PW-3) came on the spot. On seeing him, petitioner went away by threatening her. Thereafter she submitted typed complaint (Ex.P/1) at police Station, Pichhore. During cross-examination, she has admitted that after the incident she did not go to the police Station directly for lodging the report. She went to Court campus for getting her complaint typed. She cannot say as to who typed the said complaint. She admitted that police did not take her to the place of incident. Beside that, her evidence has not been supported by independent witnesses Pawan (PW-2) and Sanjeev (PW-3). They denied that petitioner molested the prosecutrix before them at the bus stand.

Allegation of outraging the modesty is very easy to allege, but very difficult to rebut. However, in the present case, evidence of the prosecutrix not appears to be reliable. Firstly she did not go to the police Station directly to lodge the report, but went to court campus for getting her complaint typed and then she filed the complaint at police Station, but neither the evidence of the person, who typed the complaint, nor the evidence of Head Constable No.318 Sukhdev Ram, who lodged the report on the basis of Ex.P/1, are on record. Beside that, independent witnesses Pawan (PW-2) and Sanjeev (PW-3) have not supported the evidence of the prosecutrix.

In such situations, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned Courts below have erred in relying on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and

convicting the petitioner under Section 354 of IPC. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. Impugned judgments of the Courts below are set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the offence under Section 354 of IPC. He is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 11-04-2023 10:47:08 AM

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE ms/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 11-04-2023 10:47:08 AM