Petitioner : Respondent: CRMINAL REVISION 94 OF 2003 Versus Chhat Ram. Suryavanshi S/o Bharat Lal Stirvanshi Aged 38 years, Resident Ranl para Ratanpyr, District BUaspi.iT (C.G) State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Ratanpur District BU^pur. Miss Nirupaoia Bajpai, counsel for £hepetitioner. Shri PrafciUa Bharat leamed Panel Lawyer for the State. QRDER ByjUSTICEI..C. BHADOO 1. Thc aGcused/applicant has preferred this criminal revlslon iinder SeGtion 397 of the Cr.P.G. agatnst the judgment dated 24tb December, 2002 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in criminal appeal ,'^ '''- '" No. 53/2002 by which the leamed Additional Sessions Judge disinlssed the appeal of Che accused/appllcant agaiast the judgment passed by the J.M.F.G. Bilaspur in crlaunalGaseNo. 48/2002 andconfirmlng the sexitenee passed by the J.M.F.C. by which he eonvfcted the aGcused/applicant under Sectkin 354 and 323 of the Indian Panel Code and sentenced him to iinder go 6 uionths R.I. and to pay fine ofRs. 300/-, in default of payiaent of flnc, to further iiader go 45 days siinple tmprisonment and R.I. for 3 months respectivelx_ ^ 's&^^s. ws IIBS i 1 ] i .1 i^l^il^'^S \^ 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this crimmal revision are thp.t when in the eveiiing of 29-7-2002 Tulsibai was gping to feteh water from the pond, the accused/appllcant was staridtng near the pond and wUen the accuse(i/applicant saw the complainant Tulsibai going towards Talab he chased her and when she was in the stTeet, with the intentiori to outrage her inodcsty, the accused/applicant prcssed the breasf of complalnant, when the complainant objected to it, then the accused/appHcant threatened her to disclose this fact to the peoplte 6f the vicinily and he slapped on her cheek. On retuming the complalnant disclosed this fact to her husband Rameshwar and othersnamely, Lalit, Ramphal said Manohar and Panchayat Was convcned in the night and before the Panchayat (he complaliiant disclosed the incident and the second day a complaint was lodged before the P.S. Ratanpur. Thecomplainant was medically examined and after investigation chailan under Seetion 354 and 323 ofthe I.P.C. ffled agauast fhe acGused/appllcant. After recordtag the evldence of the prosecution and statement of the accused and after hearing counsel for the parties, the leamed Judicial Magistrate 1st Class convicted and sentenced the accused/applicant menttoned above. j . • ^ i«f* >~"aWIU.l!^!nlii BBi»kSRT ^Mi^^.l^M --/:';J: t._ :I:^:^'::'^.^' .^ : ; *- Magistrate 1st Class convicted and sentenced the accused/applicant mentioned above. 3. I havc heard the leamcd counset for the accused/applicant aad the leamed DeputyAdvocate for the State. 4. The counsel for the accused/appUcant did not argue on the merit of the case. Further she requested that suice it is a first offencc of fhe accused/applicant and accused has already deposited the fine amount and served two months seritence, therefore, he may be Tsentenced for fhe period already under gone by hun aad he niay be released. 5. There is nothing on record which goes to show that the accused is a habitual offender or soinc other crmiuial case is pendlng agalnst hlm. 6. Being his first case and having regard to the request tnade by the leamed counsel for fhe accused, this cozirt is of (he opinion fhat the ends ofjustice would be inet if the accused's sentence is reduced to already under gone whlch 1s two months. Whlle maintatntng-the convlctlon under Seetion 354 and 323 of the I.P.C., the revlsion 1s partly aUowed and sentenced is reduced to ah-eady under goner If the accused 1s not required in anofher case, he niay be set at Uberty iniinediafely. Sd/r L.C. Bhadoo Judge t.11': "~!:: i; :i