Allowed

Sheoraf Khan v. State

Rajasthan HC9 Oct 2024CRLR/1278/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this S.B. Criminal Revision Petition, the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, examined the validity of a conviction for outrage of modesty. The court found discrepancies in prosecution evidence and noted that sexual intent was not established. Consequently, the court allowed the revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.04.2005 and affirmed on 02.12.2005 are hereby set aside, and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge of offence under Section 354 IPC.

Sheoraf Khan Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:42718]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1278/2005

¶4

Sheoraf Khan son of Baju Khan resident of village Alapur PS Malakhera, Alwar (Presently confined in District Jail, Alwar)

----Petitioner

Versus

State

	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. N.A. Naqvi, senior advocate with Mr. Hakim Ali
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. VijaySingh Yadav,PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶10

Order

¶11

09/10/2024

¶12

Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner accused aggrieved from dismissal of criminal appeal No. 30/2005 on 02.12.2005 by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast-Track) No.1, Alwar wherein the appellate court has upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence for offence under Section 354 IPC in criminal case No. 45/2002 recorded by learned ACJM No.1, Alwar on 15.04.2005.

¶13

Learned senior advocate for petitioner submitted that a perusal of statement of victim and other witnesses clearly reflect that victim was on nature’s call in the agricultural field of present petitioner but when she was scolded then she made false report against the petitioner. He further referred the statement of victim and other witnesses and submitted that there was no intention of outraging the modesty of victim and the admission of victim

[2024:RJ-JP:42718]

[CRLR-1278/2005]

(2 of 4)

clearly reflect that accused has not committed any act with sexual intent mentioned by prosecution while recommending the chargesheet. He also submitted that the victim has not supported the case of prosecution and the courts below have failed to consider the discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of witnesses while drawing conclusion of conviction. At last, he submitted that petitioner is facing trial for more than 25 years so lenient approach be adopted against him.

¶18

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.

¶19

Heard learned senior advocate for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On the basis of ex.P-1 report submitted at P.S. Malakhera on 27.01.2002 alleging that victim who was on nature’s call, caught hold by present petitioner with intention to molest her. She was rescued by other persons who reached the spot. After registration of FIR No. 17/2002 for offence under Section 376/511 IPC, a charge-sheet was filed under Section 354 IPC against the petitioner.

¶20

Petitioner has faced trial for offence under Section 354 IPC and prosecution has examined eight witnesses. Petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he opted to file defence evidence and DW-1 (Bhurekhan) was examined in defence. Learned trial court has convicted present petitioner under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him undergo simple imprisonment of one year with fine of ₹1,000/-. Aggrieved from aforesaid, criminal appeal was preferred but same was dismissed on 02.12.2005.

[2024:RJ-JP:42718]

[CRLR-1278/2005]

(3 of 4)

Victim was examined as PW-2 and in her examination-inchief she deposed that the petitioner after getting hold of her, tried to commit rape with her then she freed herself but in her cross-examination she admitted that petitioner has done nothing except bite. Her cross-examination indicated that she has made improvement in her statement, recorded before the police. A fact is quite clear from the statement of PW-3 Veerobai and PW-4 (minor eye witness) that filed belong to present petitioner and there was mustard crop on the field.

¶25

A perusal of prosecution witnesses clearly indicated that prosecution has introduced three eye witnesses PW-2, PW-4 and PW-7, whereas PW-1 complainant and PW-3 are not eye witnesses rather they are hearsay witnesses. A fact is quite clear that place of incident was agricultural field of present petitioner wherein there was mustard crop. Admitted version of prosecution is that victim has gone for nature’s call on field belong to present petitioner. Cross-examination of PW-2 and PW-4 suggests discrepancies about the incident. Nowhere it was proved from deposition of PW-2 that present petitioner has got hold of victim with sexual intent. The intention was not established from the evidence on record. Herein there is improvement by PW-2 and other witnesses. learned trial court and the appellate court have not considered the improvement made by witnesses particularly PW-2 while deposing before the court. Looking to discrepancies about the manner of incident, PW-2 is unreliable witness therefore appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. After benefit of doubt the conviction cannot be sustained, thus the trial court and the

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:42718]

[CRLR-1278/2005]

appellate court have committed serious error while convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 354 IPC.

¶30

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, revision petition preferred by petitioner- Sheoraf Khan son of Baju Khan is hereby allowed and judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.04.2005 and affirmed by learned appellate court on 02.12.2005 are hereby set aside and petitioner- Sheoraf Khan son of Baju Khan is acquitted from charge of offence under Section 354 IPC.

¶31

Accordingly, revision petition along with pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶32

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶33

PREETI VALECHA /11

Sheoraf Khan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheoraf Khan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chotu Ram S/O Shri Bhura Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Bablu @ Rakesh Sharma S/O Shri Badri Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Sharma S/O Shri Bachchu Singh Sharma Vs Krishan Kumar S/O Shri Anandi Lal Sharma

Nand Kishore Vs Rajendra Kumar and Anr.

Durga and Ors. Vs State

Rajkumar Jain Vs Babulal Soni and Anr.