Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sonu Urf Amit Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27114
1 CRR-2294-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 24 th OF JUNE, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2294 of 2025
SONU URF AMIT PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Narayan Prasad Dubey with Shri Shivam Dubey - Advocate for the
applicant.
Shri Chandrakant Mishra - 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 438/442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 06.05.2025 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge Sihora,
District-Jabalpur (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.07/2023 arising out of judgment
dated 28.07.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Sihora, District-
Jabalpur (M.P.) in R.C.T. No.500301/2016 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 two years with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulations.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no independent
witnesses have supported the victim (PW-1) and has admitted the fact that the
place where the incident had taken place, the house of other persons were
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27114
2 CRR-2294-2025
constructed, they were residing in their respective house but no one has supported
the story. Victim herself has admitted in her cross-examination that she had not
made any complaint to any other person residing near the place of occurrence.
Except the victim, rest of the prosecution witnesses are hearsay witnesses. The
applicant at the time of offence was working in mill of Lalu Patel who has
supported the fact. The applicant himself has examined as a witness and no
contradiction is found in his cross-examination.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that there was a
dispute regarding the applicant has recorded the conversation between the victim
with him and to make pressure on the applicant, this false report has been filed by
the victim and there is no substance. Victim's husband was residing in Bombay
and victim was residing at her village along with her in-laws. The applicant was
helping to the victim in daily chores and when necessity arises, carry the victim to
her in-laws and Doctor and due to pressure of her in-laws, she has lodged the FIR.
There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of victim and the
statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the trial and Appellate Court has
not considered this aspect, hence, the revision be allowed and the applicant be
acquitted.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of
the applicant and has submitted that the victim has supported the prosecution story
and there is no contradiction or omission in her statement. She has lodged FIR
immediately after the incident. No case of acquittal is made out, hence, revision be
dismissed.
6. Heard the parties and perused the record.
7. Victim (PW-1) has stated that on the date of incident, she went out of her
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27114
3 CRR-2294-2025
village to answer the call of nature and when she was returning, the applicant
caught hold her hand, dragged her in the road and tried to disrobe her saree, also
touched her body. When she cried for help, the applicant threatened her for life.
She ran away and suffered the injury in her leg. She lodged FIR in Police Station
Khitaula. Police prepared spot map (Ex.P/2). Multiple suggestion has been given
that the applicant was helping her when she was required to travel for the Doctor
or her parental house for that purpose, she was calling him. It has also been asked
that some intimacy has been developed between them and on father-in-law's
instigation, she has lodged the false FIR. It has also been asked that the applicant
had recorded her conversation on his mobile phone and to make pressure, she has
lodged the FIR.
8. From the cross-examination, the defence failed to make the statement of
victim suspicious or doubtful as on these grounds, no human shall lie to falsely
implicate the person. Age of the victim is 35 years. Her in-laws PW-2 and PW-3
have also supported the fact that when she returned the home, she narrated the
story to them. After that, the F.I.R. was lodged.
9. Father of the victim (PW-4) has also supported the same fact.
10. Investigating Officer, Sushmita Niyogi (PW-6) has stated that on
17.12.2015, the victim has lodged the FIR. On that, she has stated that with an
intention to outrage her modesty, the applicant teased her, stopped her and also
tried to disrobe her. On that basis, FIR (Ex.P/1) was registered and she recorded
the statement of the victim thus, the statement of the victim is supported by the
Investigating Officer.
11. Medical Officer Dr. Bharat Khatik (PW-7) has found pain in right leg.
From the defence itself, it is clear that on the date of incident, the applicant was in
his village as the plea has been taken that he was working in mill but he failed to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27114
4 CRR-2294-2025
show that from the mill, the place of incident could not be reached at 6:00 AM and
thus, plea of alibi is not proved.
12. Looking all these facts, the trial Court and Appellate Court, after
appreciating and elucidating the evidence, has convicted the applicant. No
interference is called for.
13. Looking to the fact that the applicant was having previous acquaintance
and good relations with the victim and the incident was caused with the victim,
aged about 35 years and applicant has no criminal antecedents.
14. Looking to the fact that the jail sentence of the applicant is reduced from
two years to one year. The applicant shall undergo R.I. for one year for the offence
punishable under Section 354 of IPC and the fine amount imposed by the trial
Court shall remain intact, in default of depositing the fine amount, the applicant
shall undergo further R.I. for three months, therefore, the criminal revision stands
partly allowed.
15. With the above terms, the Criminal Revision is partly allowed.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
AT
