Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lakhan Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30678
1 CRR-701-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 10th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 701 of 2011
LAKHAN KUSHWAHA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Anoop Saxena - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Ravindra Shukla - Deputy Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.14708/2015, which is an application filed for
seeking exemption from personal appearance of the applicant.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A.
No.14708/2015 is allowed.
3. The applicant is hereby exempted from making his personal
appearance.
4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is
heard finally at motion hearing stage.
5. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under
Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 08.04.2011 passed in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30678
2 CRR-701-2011
Cr.A.No.251/2010 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nowgong, District
Chhatarpur whereby the Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 19.11.2010 passed in Criminal
Case No.710/2009 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nowgong,
District Chhatarpur whereby the applicant was convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.300/-, with default stipulation.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the victim's
sister (PW-3) and her mother (PW-4) have not supported the prosecution
case and thus, it is clear that the testimony of the victim (PW-1) is not
supported by her own family members. He has submitted that even the
victim's father (PW-2) has also stated that there was a complaint of eve-
teasing, rape and thus, it is clear that there is material contradiction in the
statement of father also. He has submitted that at the time of offence, the
applicant was aged about 18 years and incident pertains to 11.12.2005
and at that time, the offence though was punishable under Section 354 of
the IPC, but no minimum punishment was prescribed and, therefore, he
has prayed that the applicant's detention period be limited to the period
already undergone by him and if the Court deems fit, may enhance the
fine amount.
7. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate has
submitted that the victim has supported the prosecution case and even
her sister (PW-3) has also supported the material fact of outraging the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30678
3 CRR-701-2011
modesty of the victim. He has submitted that the victim has also made
the complaint of the incident to her father (PW-2) and mother (PW-4)
and they have supported the story narrated by the victim and hence,
under the existing facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is
called for.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
9. So far as incident is concerned, it is alleged that on 11.12.2005
at about 07.00 pm when the victim went towards her field to answer the
call of nature, the applicant came there, caught hold her hand and thrown
her on the ground and on that when she cried for help, then her sister
(PW-3) came there and thereafter, the applicant ran away from the spot.
10. The victim (PW-1) in her Court statement has stated that the
applicant only caught hold her hand, but not threw her down and when
her sister came there, then the applicant ran away from the spot. This fact
has been supported by PW-3 with certain alterations that her sister
complained her that the applicant was making whistle sound and staring
at her, but in cross-examination, this witness has supported that the
applicant caught hold her sister and when she reached the spot, the
applicant left her sister. The victim's parents have also supported that on
the date of incident, the applicant has eve-teased their daughter and she
has made a complaint to them in this regard.
11. The Investigating Officer namely Virendra Singh (PW-5) has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30678
4 CRR-701-2011
stated that on the complaint made by the victim, he has registered the
FIR (Ex.P-1) on the next date i.e. 12.12.2005 at about 11.30 hours.
12. From the arrest memo prepared by the police, it is clear that at
the time of incident, the applicant was aged about 18 years 02 months
and the victim was aged about 19 years. Though, the applicant has taken
a defence that there was a dispute regarding trespass of cattle belonging
to the victim's family and on that the FIR has been lodged against him,
but looking to the fact that the victim who is an unmarried lady, her
statement has been supported by her family members and nothing has
been brought on record to show that the victim is speaking lie, hence,
she can be said to be reliable witness and on that basis, the conviction of
the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC is
upheld.
13. On the sentence, it is clear that this case belongs to 2005 and
since then 20 years have already elapsed. After the affirmation of
conviction by the Appellate Court, the applicant was sent to jail on
08.04.2011 and his jail sentence was suspended by this Court on
02.05.2011 thus for about 25 days, he was in custody. In the year 2005,
there was no minimum sentence prescribed for the offence punishable
under Section 354 of the IPC but the sentence was punishment of
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend up to
two years or with fine or with both. Looking to this aspect, the
applicant's jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, but
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30678
5 CRR-701-2011
his fine amount is enhanced from Rs.300/- to Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the
applicant shall deposit the remaining amount of fine i.e. Rs.9,700/-
before the trial Court concerned within a period of 30 days from today,
otherwise he shall suffer the jail sentence as imposed by the trial Court.
14. With the aforesaid observation, the revision petition stands
disposed of.
15. Along with a copy of this order, the record of the trial Court
and Appellate Court be sent back.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
dm
