Full Judgment
Surinder Singh, J.
1. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court under Sections 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code as follows:
Sl. No. Offence Sentence1. Under Section 354 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of sixmonths and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/-2. Under Section 323 IPC Pay a fine of Rs.500/-.In default of payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- intotal, he shall further undergo one month and7 days simple imprisonment and out of fineamount of Rs.2,000/-, a sum of Rs.1,000/- bepaid to the prosecutrix Meera Devi ascompensation.
2. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed appeal No. 15 of 1998 against his conviction and sentence in the court of Sessions.
3. The learned Additional District Judge while maintaining his conviction, maintained the fine under both the sections but modified and reduced the sentence to fifteen days imprisonment under Section 354 I.P.C. and also for 15 days under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. Against the concurrent findings of guilt, the present revision petition has been filed on the grounds that the evidence of the prosecution was contradictory and there was no direct evidence on record. The injuries on the person of the prosecutrix were not proved and the court below wrongly relied upon the tainted evidence.
5. In short, the prosecution case is that on 14.3.1997 at 6 p.m. the prosecutrix was working in the court yard of her house in her village. The appellant, her brother-in-law was passing through nearby path and exhibited his tongue to her, on this the prosecutrix reacted and asked the accused to show the tongue to his mother and sister but not to her. Then the appellant caught hold of the prosecutrix from her arms and put her down and sat on her chest. She resisted, her bangles were broken. She raised hue and cry. Her co-villagers came to the spot and rescued her. The complainant sustained simple injuries on her person and the matter was reported to the police. The police reached the spot, prepared the site plan and took the broken bangles into possession from the spot in the presence of Panchhee Ram and Judhya Devi. The prosecutrix was medically examined on the same day. She was found to have sustained the simple injuries within six hours.
6. The police recorded the statement of the witnesses and after completing the investigation, the challan was presented in the court for trial. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He raised the defence that there was a dispute over the path with the prosecutrix and the witnesses Panchee Ram and Judhya Devi were inimically deposed of towards him. Thus he was falsely implicated in the case.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
8. To prove his defence no evidence was led by the petitioner whereas the prosecutrix has fully corroborated the prosecution case when examined in the Court as PW-1. She categorically stated that the appellant while passing through the path nearby had shown his tongue to her. In turn she asked to show to his mother or sister and not to her. On this, petitioner picked her up and threw her on the ground, in the field, sat on her chest and twisted her arms. She also proved report (Ext.PW-1/A) which was registered by her in Police Post, Hatli. In the cross-examination she has stated that for the last about two years the relations with the appellant were not cordial as he had been using abusive language after taking liquor. She admitted that whatever had happened with her was reported to the police and also admitted that the appellant is a liquor addict and tortured her.
9. PW-2 Sh.Panchhee Ram was attracted by cries of the prosecutrix and reached at the spot. He testified on oath with respect to the breaking of the bangles in the said episode and he categorically stated that the prosecutrix was thrown on the ground by the appellant. When he reached the spot her arms were twisted by the petitioner and he was sitting on the chest of the prosecutrix. PW-6 Smt. Judhya Devi has also made the similar statement which affords the corroboration to the version of the prosecutrix.
10. The version of the prosecutrix further finds corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Virender Thakur. He has proved her medico legal certificate. He noticed as much as four simple injuries on her person having been caused within six hours on the same day.
11. On the examination of the record I find that the offence charged against the petitioner stands proved.
12. To constitute the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is obliged to prove the following essential ingredients:
(i). that the person assaulted must be a woman;
(ii) that the accused must have used criminal force on her; and
(iii) that the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty.
13. The apex Court in Shekara v. State of Karnataka : 2009(3)SCALE104 observed that the intention of the accused is not the sole criterion of the offence punishable under Section 354 I.P.C. and it can be committed by a person assaulting or using criminal force to any woman, if he knows that by such act the modesty of the woman is likely to be affected. Knowledge and intention are essentially things of the mind and cannot be demonstrated like physical objects. The existence of intention or knowledge has to be culled out from various circumstances in which and upon whom the alleged offence is alleged to have been committed. A victim of molestation and indignation is in the same position as an injured witness and her testimony should receive the same weight.
14. In the instant case, after careful consideration of the evidence the trial Court and the court of Sessions have found the accused guilty for the offence under Sections 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The injury on the person of the prosecutrix affords a material corroboration to her version.
15. Thus, considering the background facts of the case and the position in law as indicated above, the inevitable conclusion is that the courts below have rightly and correctly appreciated the evidence of the prosecutrix and I see no reason to interfere with the findings of guilt and sentence passed against the petitioner for the offences aforesaid, as the learned Sessions Judge has already taken a lenient view. Therefore, the revision petition is without any merit. Accordingly it is dismissed.
16. The records of the courts below be returned forthwith.