Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jethu Banvasi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26401
1 CRR-1767-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 19 th OF JUNE, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1767 of 2025
JETHU BANVASI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Shyam Sundar Singrore - Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey - Government Advocate for State.
JUDGMENT
With the consent of the parties, this Criminal Revision is finally heard at the
motion hearing stage.
2. This revision under Section 438/442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 18.03.2025 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge
Dindori, District-Dindori (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2024 arising out of
judgment dated 31.07.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class
Shahpura, District-Dindori (M.P.) in R.C.T. No.54 of 2019 affirming the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court whereby
the applicant has been convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 323 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 month with fine of
Rs.500/- with default stipulations.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the trial Court has
not considered the aspect that only by holding the hand, the injury could not be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26401
2 CRR-1767-2025
caused to the victim as she was young and further submitted that the case comes
under the purview of Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code but not under
Section 354 of Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that due to previous
enmity, the applicant has been falsely implicated and the trial Court as well as the
Appellate Court have not considered this aspect. Hence, the revision be allowed
and the applicant be released as he is in custody since 18.03.2025.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed and has
submitted that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant,
hence, no interference is called for.
5. Heard the parties and perused the record.
6. In nutshell, the prosecution case is that on 24.03.2019, the victim was
grazing her goats and at 02:30 pm, the applicant went to victim and caught hold
her right hand and demanded sexual favour, on that the victim ran away from that
place and narrated the story to Sonsai Yadav r/o Village Surajpura and also
informed her parents and younger brother. Thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged on
26.03.2019 at about 17:00 hours vide Crime No.139 of 2019 under Sections 354,
323/506 of the Indian Penal Code. Spot map was prepared. Victim was examined
by the Medical Officer. Her statement was recorded and after that the charge-sheet
was submitted before the trial Court.
7. The trial Court has convicted the applicant as mentioned in paragraph
no.1 of this judgment.
8. From the F.I.R., it is clear that on the date of incident, victim was grazing
her goats at Surajpura Suryari Forest, applicant only caught hold her right hand
and requested for sexual favour. It is not alleged that the applicant caught hold any
other parts of the body. Physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26401
3 CRR-1767-2025
explicit sexual overtures; or demand or request for sexual favours has been
provided to be an offence under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code and when
the victim pulled her hand, she sustained injury.
9. The fact of the incident has been supported by the victim (PW-1). Father
of the victim (PW-5), mother of the victim (PW-7), brother of the victim (PW-2)
have supported that the victim made a complaint to them regarding the act of the
applicant. System Singh (PW-8) and Sonsai (PW-9) have supported the fact that
on the date of incident, the victim was grazing her goats and the applicant was also
present on the spot.
10. Furthermore, from the statement of mother of the victim (PW-7), it is
also clear that the applicant is related with this witness. On the basis that there was
a previous quarrel regarding the cattle trespassed, it cannot be said that due to that
quarrel, a false F.I.R. has been lodged. The father of the victim has also stated that
they tried to settle the matter by Village Panchayat but applicant was not ready,
hence, the F.I.R. was lodged.
11. Looking to all these factors, the offence is proved but the act of the
applicant comes under the definition clause of Section 354-A of the Indian Penal
Code, hence the conviction of the applicant is converted from Section 354 of the
Indian Penal Code to under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code and the
conviction under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed.
12. Looking to the age of the victim and the fact as stated above, no
minimum punishment is provided for the offence punishable under Section 354-A
of the Indian Penal Code and the applicant is in custody since 18.03.2025, the
interest of justice would be fulfilled if the fine amount is enhanced.
13. The conviction of the applicant is converted from Section 354 of the
Indian Penal Code to under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code and his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26401
4 CRR-1767-2025
sentence is limited to the period already undergone and the fine amount is
enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/- and in default of depositing the fine
amount, he shall undergo R.I. for three months.
14. In the same way, the jail sentence of the applicant for the offence
punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is limited to the period
already undergone and fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/- and
in default of depositing the fine amount, he shall undergo R.I. for one month,
therefore, the criminal revision stands partly allowed.
15. The applicant, if not required in any other case, on fine amount being
deposited shall be released forthwith.
16. With the above terms, the Criminal Revision is partly allowed.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
julie
