1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR Criminal Revision Application No. 162/2009 Vasant @ Yeshwant Shrirang Kamble, aged about 50 years, Occ. Nil, r/o Butibori, Tq. Nagpur (Rural), Dist. Nagpur .. APPLICANT .. Versus .. The State of Maharashtra, thr. PSO Butibori, Dist. Nagpur. .. NON APPLICANT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R. M. Daga, Advocate for applicants. Ms. T. D. Khade, A.P.P. for non applicant. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED :- 14 th September,2009 P. C. 1. The applicant faced trial under Section 447, 354 of the Indian Penal Code before Judicial Magistrate First Class, 10th Court, Nagpur. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, by judgment and order dated 04.05.2006 convicted the applicant under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The applicant was also convicted under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and was ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one 2 month. The sentences imposed were to be suffered concurrently. A sum of Rs. 500/- was to be paid by way of compensation to the complainant. Applicant challenged the aforesaid order of conviction by filing Criminal Appeal No. 141/2006 in the Sessions Court and the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Nagpur by judgment and order dated 17.08.2009 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of sentence imposed upon the applicant. 2A. Record was called in order to consider the matter on merits. 3. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Daga, appearing on behalf of the applicant. The prosecution case in gist is as under. PW1 Shobha Randive, victim was working in the field on 10.09.2004 and at about 4.00 p.m. The applicant entered the field of Shobha and did an act which amounted to outraging modesty of said Shobha inasmuch as the applicant had caught hold and pressed her both breasts by both hands. Said Shobha got enraged and 3 rushed to Police Station and filed First Information Report, on the basis of which, investigation was conducted. Husband of said victim Shobha was also came to be examined and that is the main evidence which came to be placed before the Court for the purposes of seeking conviction of the applicant. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class by detailed judgment and order passed an order of conviction as mentioned aforesaid. The appeal filed against the said order also came to be dismissed. 4. Learned Advocate Mr.Daga, submitted that said Shobha is in habit of filing complaints of similar nature against the villagers. In support of that he had filed a copy of complaint filed against 3-4 persons by name Kailash and others. In my view, it would not be open for this Court to consider this argument because this has nothing to do with the merits of the matter even if it was done because those complaints may not be very much relevant to decide whether allegations levelled in the present complaint were false. The argument is, therefore, rejected. 4 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Daga submitted that on consideration of the entire evidence, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class ought to have rejected the case of the prosecution and should have acquitted the applicant. After having gone through the record, I am not inclined to accept this. The evidence of Shobha (PW1) clearly indicates that when she was working in her field, accused was working in the adjacent field and that applicant entered into field of Shobha (PW1) and did an act as mentioned aforesaid and managed to escape. If the said Shobha (PW1) consented to the act, she would have remained calm and quiet and from the fact that she ran to the police station itself goes to show that she did not approve of conduct of the applicant. It is to be noted that Shobha is a married lady, therefore, this act of rushing to the Police Station soon after incident on her part clearly goes to show that she has no tendency of filing false complaint. Husband of said Shobha (PW2) also rushed to the Police Station knowing that his wife had reached the Police Station. There he learnt about incidence and has given evidence to that effect. 5 6. In my view, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has appreciated the evidence in appropriate perspective and has rendered order, which has been confirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. After having gone through the entire record, I am not inclined to accept the arguments advanced that evidence led on the part of prosecution should not be accepted. The order of conviction as mentioned aforesaid is required to be confirmed. 7. Learned Advocate Mr. Daga urged that the applicant is presently aged about 50 years and that he has already undergone imprisonment for 10 days. Learned Advocate Mr. Daga submitted that the sentence can be reduced to the period already undergone and fine amount can be increased and compensation can be given out of the said amount of fine. 8. Learned A.P.P. Ms. Khade opposed this submission. I have considered the quantum of sentence. The learned Judicial Magistrate has shown restraint and 6 has sentenced the applicant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- has been ordered. A sum of Rs. 500/- is ordered to be paid by way of compensation. It is required to be mentioned that the minimum sentence which can be imposed is for a period of two years and specific quantum of fine is not mentioned while defining Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, I am not inclined to reduce the sentence. In my view, if the sentence is reduced, it may give wrong signal in the society. Here is a case where a lady was working in the field where she was all alone. The applicant who happens to be of the same village was working in the adjoining field, managed to have an opportunity of catching said Shobha in a very delicate manner and dealt with her in a manner unwarranted to that of a neighbour farmer. In my view, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has imposed an appropriate quantum of sentence and no leniency is required to be shown. The request for reduction of sentence is required to be rejected. 7 9. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the revision application is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence, the following order is passed. (a) The revision application is dismissed. (b) Presently, the applicant is on bail. He shall surrender to the bail on or before 23.09.2009. If he does not surrender accordingly, the concerned Court shall issue non bailable warrant against the applicant. (c) Record and proceedings be sent to the trial Court forthwith. JUDGE kahale