Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanju @ Sanjay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 May, 2024
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 29th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2268 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SANJU @ SANJAY S/O SHANTILAL, AGED ABOUT
19 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILLAGE
BILAWALI DISTT.- DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SURENDRA TUTEJA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
BNP DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI KAPIL MAHANT, P.L./G.A.)
..................................................................................................
This revision coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.
2] This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order
dated 06.05.2024, passed in CRA No.227/2023, by IIIrd
Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas whereby, the learned Judge
has affirmed the order dated 25.08.2023 passed by Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Dewas in Criminal Case No.1392 of 2020,
whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted the petitioner
under Section 354, 354(A)-(1) of IPC and sentenced him to
undergo 1 - 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.500/-
respectively with default stipulations.
3] In brief, the facts of the case are that on 12.09.2020, when
the complainant/victim was selling flowers in her shop, at that
time, the present petitioner came and caught hold of her hand,
and threatened her to come with her and also abused her. She
released her hand and at that time, her elder sister also came and
thus, the petitioner ran away from the spot threatening them of
dire consequences, if she lodged the report. After the charge-
sheet was filed, the learned Judge of the Trial Court, after
recording the evidence, has convicted the petitioner as aforesaid
vide judgement dated 25.08.2023, and in the appeal preferred
before the District Appellate Court, the judgement of the Trial
Court has been affirmed vide judgement dated 06.05.2024.
Hence, this revision.
4] Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the
learned Judges of the District Court have erred in not properly
appreciating the evidence as admittedly, the MLC is also silent,
and apart from that, the elder sister of the victim, PW-2 has also
clearly stated that she was not present at the time of the incident
and also that she does not know the present petitioner. Thus, it is
submitted that there was no reason for the elder sister not to
support the complaint made by her younger sister. It is also
submitted that otherwise also, during the course of trial, an
application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. was also filed for
compounding the offences, which has already been allowed vide
order dated 20.07.2023, in respect of offences under Section 294
and 506 Part-II of IPC, however, since offence under Section
354-A of IPC is a not compoundable, it has been rejected in
respect of the aforesaid offence only. It is also submitted that the
petitioner is lodged in jail since 06.05.2024. Thus, it is submitted
that the impugned judgement be set aside, and the petitioner be
acquitted.
5] Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has
opposed the prayer and it is submitted that looking to the
deposition of the victim, and concurrent finding of facts, no case
for interference is made out.
6] Heard. Before this court proceeds further with the merits of
the case it would be germane to refer to the decision rendered by
the Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda,
reported as (2018) 8 SCC 165, defining the scope High Court's
powers u/s.401 of Cr.P.C., which is limited to satisfying itself as
to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding. The
relevant paras of the same read as under:-
"12. This Court has time and again examined the scope of
Sections 397/401 CrPC and the ground for exercising the
revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. In State of
Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [State of
Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2
SCC 452 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 275] , while considering the scope of
the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court this Court has laid
down the following: (SCC pp. 454-55, para 5)
"5. ... In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court
can call for and examine the record of any
proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to
the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding,
sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is
one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High
Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the
said revisional power cannot be equated with the
power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even
as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily,
therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High
Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its
own conclusion on the same when the evidence has
already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as
the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring
feature is brought to the notice of the High Court
which would otherwise tantamount to gross
miscarriage of justice. On scrutinising the impugned
judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid
standpoint, we have no hesitation to come to the
conclusion that the High Court exceeded its
jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the
respondent by reappreciating the oral evidence. ..."
13. Another judgment which has also been referred to and relied
on by the High Court is the judgment of this Court in Sanjaysinh
Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [Sanjaysinh
Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, (2015) 3 SCC
123 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 19] . This Court held that the High
Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction shall not interfere with
the order of the Magistrate unless it is perverse or wholly
unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant
material, the order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that
another view is possible. Following has been laid down in para
14: (SCC p. 135)
"14. ... Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is
perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly
unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any
relevant material or there is palpable misreading of
records, the Revisional Court is not justified in
setting aside the order, merely because another view
is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act
as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the
revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the
court to do justice in accordance with the principles
of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of
the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be
equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of
the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is
shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is
grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where
the decision is based on no material or where the
material facts are wholly ignored or where the
judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or
capriciously, the courts may not interfere with
decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.""
(Emphasis Supplied)
7] Thus, unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to
be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly
erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based
on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or
where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously,
this court should not interfere with the findings recorded by the
District Courts. .
8] It is in this backdrop only that the findings of both the
Courts, the trial as also the District Appellate Court are to be
appreciated.
9] Since the case involves only the oral evidence, this Court is
also of the considered opinion that in a case of conviction based
on oral testimony only, it is the duty of the High Court to see with
circumspect, if any material evidence has been left out from
consideration or if the judicial discretion has been exercised
arbitrarily.
10] Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of
the documents filed on record, it is apparent that the only
allegation against the petitioner is that he grabbed the hand of the
victim as narrated by her, however, there is no allegation of any
assault, and as per the MLC, Ex.P/6, the victim had also stated
that she has not suffered any injury and she does not want to get
herself examined.
11] Apart from that, Pw/2 Laxmi, who is the 23 years old, elder
sister of the victim, has turned hostile and has denied any such
incident having taken place, and there appears to be no reason for
her to not to support her younger sister's claim. Although, both
the Courts below have held that Pw/2 came to the spot
subsequently hence her testimony in not reliable however, it is
found that even the victim has stated in her examination-in-chief
that her elder sister came and intervened at the time of incident.
Thus, there are two views available on record, both contradictory
to each other.
12] It is trite that if two views are possible on the evidence
adduced by the prosecution, one pointing to the guilt of the
accused and other of his innocence, the view which is favourable
to the accused should be adopted. The Supreme Court in the case
of Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal, reported as (2016) 16 SCC 418 has
held as under:-
"11. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
The burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies
on the prosecution and it never shifts. Another golden thread
which runs through the web of the administration of justice in
criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence
adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and
the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the
accused should be adopted. (Vide Kali Ram v. State of H.P. [Kali
Ram v. State of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808 : 1973 SCC (Cri)
1048] ; State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram [State of
Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 : 2003 SCC (Cri)
1965] ; Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [Chandrappa v. State
of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri)
325] ; Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa [Upendra
Pradhan v. State of Orissa, (2015) 11 SCC 124 : (2015) 4 SCC
(Cri) 309] and Golbar Hussain v. State of Assam [Golbar
Hussain v. State of Assam, (2015) 11 SCC 242 : (2015) 4 SCC
(Cri) 384] .)"
(Emphasis Supplied)
13] Thus, in the case at hand, when there are two contradictory
oral testimonies available on record, viz., one by Pw/1, holding
the petitioner liable, though, without any corroborative evidence
and the other, by Pw/2, not supporting the case of the
prosecution, this Court is of the considered opinion that in view
of the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court, the view which
favours the petitioner/accused, ought to have been adopted.
14] In view of the aforesaid, it can be safely concluded that the
prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge of
outraging the modesty of a woman or sexual harassment against
the petitioner, and has not been able to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. Thus, this Court is inclined to allow the present
revision, as case for interference is made out.
15] Accordingly, the criminal revision stands allowed and the
impugned judgements dated 06.05.2024 and 25.08.2023 are
hereby set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges
levelled against him. As the petitioner is lodged in jail, he be
released forthwith.
16] With the aforesaid, the revision stands allowed and
disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Bahar
