Madhya Pradesh High Court
Faghulal @ Panda vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25892
1 CRR-2191-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 17th OF JUNE, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2191 of 2025
FAGHULAL @ PANDA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Shishir Kumar Soni - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Yogendra Das Yadav - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, this Criminal Revision is finally heard
at the motion hearing stage.
2. This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 05.05.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Balaghat, District Balaghat in Criminal Appeal No.146/2024 arising out of
judgment dated 31.07.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class
Balaghat, District Balaghat (M.P.) in RCT No.377/2018 affirming the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court
whereby the applicant has been convicted under Sections 354, 323 and 456
of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year, 3
months S.I. and one year S.I. with fine of Rs.100/-, Rs.100/- and Rs.100/-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25892
2 CRR-2191-2025
respectively with default stipulations.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the trial Court
as well as Appellate Court has wrongly relied on the statement of victim,
identity of the applicant is highly doubtful as it is said that the incident had
taken place at night and the victim (PW-1) has not stated what was the source
of light in which victim has identified the applicant. PW-2 has clearly
admitted in the cross-examination that the incident was told by his mother
and on that basis, he stated that the applicant was involved. PW-6 brother-in-
law of the victim has also admitted in the cross-examination that he saw the
applicant while running from back side and not from the front.
4. Victim (PW-1) in her statement has admitted that usually she locked
the door by putting the latch but on the date of incident, lock of her house
was open and there was marriage function of one person in her village and
more than one person had consumed the alcohol and were coming and going
from that area and on that basis, it is submitted that there is no fully reliable
evidence on which basis that the applicant could be convicted but the trial
Court as well as Appellate Court has wrongly convicted the applicant, hence,
both the Courts have committed error and conviction cannot be sustained.
5. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment and
submitted that there is no force in the revision and re-appreciation cannot be
done while deciding the revision petition, hence, the revision be dismissed.
6. Heard the parties and perused the record.
7. In nutshell, the prosecution case is that on 27.04.2018 at 1:30 am
night, the victim (PW-1) was sleeping in her house, bulb was on, her
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25892
3 CRR-2191-2025
husband was not in the house as he was outside for service on that the
applicant entered into her house and caught hold her and started pulling her
saree, when she called for help, her children and brother-in-law (PW-6) woke
up and on that, the applicant ran away.
8. In her statement, the victim (PW-1) has clearly stated that she was
sleeping in her house, her brother-in-law was also sleeping in his room.
Applicant came and caught hold her face and was pressing her face. He sat
on her back when she cried for help, her children and neighbourers woke up
and accused ran away from her house. FIR was lodged in police station, she
suffered the injuries in her thumb and wrist. In the extensive cross-
examination, nothing has been found on which basis this witness can be
disbelieved.
9. Witness, son of the victim PW-2 has stated that in the night at 1:00
am, heard the sudden noise and when he got up, her mother told the incident.
PW-6 in his statement has supported that victim PW-1 was sleeping in her
room along with her two children and he along with his wife were sleeping
in another room. He heard the cry and on that, he came out from his room
and had seen that the applicant was running, he chased him but applicant ran
away. Her sister-in-law lodged the FIR. In the cross-examination of this
witness, no substantial contradiction has been found.
10. Victim suffered the injury, this fact has been supported by Dr.
Umesh Dahate (PW-7). FIR Ex.P/1 was lodged just in the morning at 11:56
am in which the victim has mentioned the name of the applicant. From
Ex.P/2 and the statement of prosecution witnesses, it is also clear that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25892
4 CRR-2191-2025
victim at the time of the offence was sleeping in her residential house.
Applicant is victim's neighbour and applicant after trespassing in the house
of the victim, at night assaulted the victim, molested her and during scuffle,
the victim also suffered the injuries, hence, the trial as well as Appellate
Court has rightly convicted the applicant.
11. Furthermore, the offence punishable under Section 354 as per
amendment after year, 2013, one year R.I. is a minimum sentence on that
point also, the sentence is also as per law, hence, no case for interference is
made out and the applicant failed to demonstrate that any illegality,
impropriety have been done by the trial as well as Appellate Court, hence
revision is dismissed.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
AT
