Dismissed

Ravi Ram Dom v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Nov 2022CRR/410/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the applicant's challenge to his conviction under Section 354 IPC for molestation. The Court upheld the finding that the applicant committed the offence by catching the prosecutrix from behind despite her age.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed maintaining the conviction under Section 354 IPC.

Ravi Ram Dom Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 410 of 2021

¶5

Ravi Ram Dom S/o Shri Bihari Ram Aged About 34 Years R/o Patratoli, Sukbasupara, P.S.- Duldula, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police StationDuldula, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent.

¶8

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Applicant : Ms. Vijay Laxmi Shroff, Adv. For respondent/State : Mr. Kunal Das, PL.

¶9

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶10

11.11.2022

¶11

This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant against the judgment dated 22.03.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.22/2019 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.200, plus default stipulation.

¶12

Shri Kunal Das, learned State counsel submits that as per information received from Jail Superintendent, Jashpur, District Jashpur vide letter dated 19.10.2022, the applicant Ravi Ram Dom, son of Shri Bihari Ram has completed his jail sentence awarded to him and was released on 17.06.2022.

¶13

Prosecutrix case, in brief, is that the complainant (PW-1) lodged an FIR in the police station Duldula, Jashpur on 20.10.2017 at 9:30 hours stating that on the date of incident i.e. 20.10.2017, in the evening at about 5:30 PM, when she had gone to attend the call of nature, on way she met the applicant whereupon the applicant asked her as to where she is going. The prosecutrix replied that that she is going elsewhere and proceeded further but after some distance, the appellant came from behind covering his face and with wrong

¶14

¶15

intention caught hold of her hand, on which the prosecutrix resisted. When she saw the accused in the torch light, the accused fell her down on the ground, whereupon the prosecutrix requested the appellant whether he would commit such act with his mother, then the appellant though that the prosecutrix identified him and ran away from the spot. On the aforesaid allegations the police lodged the FIR for the offence under Section 354 of IPC. During investigation the offence under Section 364 (d)(1)(i) of the IPC was also added and after completion of investigation charge-sheet has been filed.

¶16

The prosecution in order to prove the offence against the applicant examined 7 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the accused pleaded innocence and false implication. However, he did not examine any defence witness.

¶17

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of material available on record, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kunkuri, District Jashpur vide his judgment dated 18.06.2019 convicted the appellant under Sections 354 and 354 (d)(1)(i) of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- and to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- respectively, plus default stipulation.

¶18

Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the applicant preferred a criminal appeal bearing CRA No.22/2019 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri. Vide judgment dated 22.03.2021 learned Additional Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 354 IPC, however, set aside the sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 354 (d)(1)(i) of the IPC for the reason that Section 354 IPC being greater than 354 (d)(1)(i) IPC and further taking into consideration that the prosecutrix being aged about 51 years.

¶19

¶20

The complainant/prosecutrix has been examined as PW-1 and she has reiterated the contents of the FIR in her Court evidence. Binda (PW-2) has also corroborated the evidence of the prosecutrix. Budhram (PW-3) is the witness of the seizure of the slipper of the accused vide Ex.P-3. Vashisth Thakur (PW-4) is the husband of the prosecutrix who in his evidence stated that at the time of incident he was outside his house and on hearing cries, he proceeded towards his house. After reaching the house, his wife/complainant narrated the entire incident to him. This witness has also proved the seizure of slipper (Ex.P-3) belonging to the applicant. Devendra thakur (PW-5) is the Sub inspector who has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident i.e. 20.10.2017, the prosecutrix came to the police station and got registered the FIR, on the basis of which, the offence under Section 354 IPC was registered against the accused. Amarnath Shukla (PW-6) is the Assistant Sub Inspector who prepared the spot map vide Ex.P-2 and seized the slippers of the accused vide Ex.P-3 and the same bears his signature.

¶21

This Court has gone through the evidence available on record and has found that the appellant was not able to contradict the evidence of the prosecutrix in her examination in chief. The evidence of the prosecutrix appears to be trustworthy and inspire confidence of the Court. The accused/applicant pointed out some discrepancies and exaggerated in the evidence of the prosecutrix.

¶22

It is well settled that minor discrepancies not touching the core of the case cannot be a ground for rejection of evidence in entirety. It is also well settled that the deficiency and infirmities in the evidence need to be evaluated to find out whether they go against general tenor of evidence. Unless, the discrepancies go to the route of the matter, the same did not make evidence reliable, see State of UP Vs. Krishna Master & Ors. Reported in 2010 Crl. LJ 3889.

¶23

¶24

Coming back to the facts of the case, the prosecutrix is aged about 51 years, the accused in order to hide his identity covered his face came, from behind and caught hold of hands of the prosecutrix and on raising cries and on identifying by the prosecutrix, the applicant left her and ran away from the spot. Therefore, it is established that the applicant has committed the offence under Section 354 of IPC and learned Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality in convicting the applicant under Section 354 of IPC.

¶25

For the forgoing, this Court is of the opinion that the present revision has no substance and the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that as per the report of Jail Superintendent, Jashpur dated 19.10.2022, the accused/applicant has already completed his jail sentence and was released on 17.06.2022, therefore, no separate order regarding his surrender or arrest is required in the matter.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶28

Barve/Ajay

Ravi Ram Dom v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Ram Dom v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Swarupa Vs K. Dharam Rao

Parvez Alam Ansaari Vs Vill. Panchayat Karandola Janpad Panchayat Bastar C.G.

Sushilchandra Pagariya Vs M/s Ultra Tech Cement Limited

Dhaneshwer Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Malay Jain (Petitioner in Person) Vs the High Court of Chhattisgarh

Shirin Malewar Vs State of Chhattisgarh