The matter is scheduled in the final-hearing-cases-list. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the revision is heard finally.

2. This criminal revision u/s 397 / 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 20.09.2023 passed by learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Criminal Appeal No.101/2022 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of conviction dated 17.10.2022 passed by the learned JMFC, Rajnagar, District Chhatarpur in RCT No.100444/2016, convicting the petitioner/accused for commission of offence under Sections 354-A, 506 (Part-II) and 509 of IPC and sentencing with R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.2000/-, one year with fine of Rs.2000/- and three years with fine of Rs.2000/- respectively, with default stipulation.

3. The portrayal of facts as per the prosecution before the trial Court, is that the first informant/victim is a married lady having two children aged about six and four years respectively. The petitioner/accused was a tenant in the matrimonial house of victim, wherein, he was running a restaurant. The petitioner/accused used to address the victim as "Chachi" and used to visit her house frequently. As time progressed, the petitioner/accused started calling the victim through mobile-phone and sending messages. Abruptly, the petitioner started threatening the victim that he had preserved her obscene video-clips and he tried to compel her for making physical relations. He also threatened to kill the children of the victim. The victim could not muster courage to disclose such activities of the petitioner to her husband. On 22.08.2016, the petitioner/accused had given certain pills to the victim for administering it to her husband and children, then he would come to her house for making physical relations. The victim denied to do the same. Thereafter, on 29.08.2016, the petitioner/accused came to the victim's house and again threatened her to viral the obscene videos and to kill her children. In such a situation, she herself consumed those pills and consequent thereto, she started vomiting and then she was admitted to the hospital where the statement of the victim was recorded by the Executive Magistrate and then an FIR bearing Crime No.170/2016 for the offence punishable under sections 501 , 506 , 509 , 354 of IPC was lodged at Police Station Bamitha, District Chhatarpur.

3.1 After completion of investigation, a final report was filed before the trial Court.

3.2 At trial, the petitioner/accused abjured his guilty and pleaded false implication. While acquitting the petitioner/accused from 3 Cr.R.No.4513/2023 the charge under sections 501 and 354 IPC, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner/accused as mentioned above. In appeal, the appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Hence, this revision.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that there are several contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that although there is statement about so-called pills given by the petitioner-accused to victim, but she in her statement recorded before the Executive Magistrate, has herself stated that she had consumed sulphas, although there is dichotomy in her version in the court's statement. He further submitted that from the record, it is clear that there was no material gleaned by the prosecution with regard to alleged call-details, messaging or chatting or even video-clippings. The victim (PW1) in her statement, stated that the petitioner/accused had given her some paper-slips, which she handed over to the police, but no such paper-slips have been recovered or produced by the prosecution before the trial Court. He further submitted that after the alleged incident, the victim has also lodged two FIRs within a span of two to four months against the petitioner, which makes it clear that the victim and her family members are trying to fallaciously implicate the petitioner in the crime on one or the other pretext. On these premise, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused prays for setting aside the impugned judgments of the Courts below and acquitting the petitioner/accused.

5. E-converso, learned counsel for the respondent/State has supported the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the petitioner/accused has been rightly convicted on 4 Cr.R.No.4513/2023 the fulcrum of evidence adduced before the trial Court and thus the revision deserves dismissal.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and meticulously perused the record.

7. Indeed, in order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses before the trial Court. Indisputably, the petitioner/accused was tenant in the matrimonial house of the victim, wherein, he was running a restaurant and he had access/opportunity to visit the victim's house frequently. Victim (PW1) in her deposition, has categorically stated that the petitioner/accused used to carry ill-intention towards her and therefore she stopped talking to him. Thereafter, the petitioner/accused started threatening her. She has stated that the petitioner/accused made relentless efforts for making physical relationships with her. On 27.08.2016 the petitioner/accused gave her pills and powder for administering it to her family members so that he would come for making sexual relationship with her. Victim (PW1) further stated that on 29.08.2016, the petitioner/accused came and threatened her to viral the video-clippings and also to kill her husband and children and pressurized her to fulfill his carnal demands. Thereafter, she herself consumed those pills and powder. Then she was hospitalised in Chhatarpur where her statement was recorded and report was lodged to the police.

8. Similitude is the statement of Jaiprakash (PW2), who is the husband of victim, and narrated about the incident and corroborated the version of victim (PW1). Omprakash (PW3), who is well-acquainted with the victim and accused, has also supported the version of the victim (PW1). Sub-Inspector K.P. Singh (PW5) had seized the mobile-phone 5 Cr.R.No.4513/2023 from the victim and accused vide seizure memos (Ex.P/3 and P/4). Kuldeep (PW4) and Hraydesh Mishra (PW6) & Mazid Khan (PW7) are the witnesses of seizure memos (Ex.P/3 and P/4) respectively. Looking to the overall evidence available on record, the evidence pertaining to seizure of mobile-phones becomes immaterial. Kamlesh Kumar Sahu (PW8) is the Inspector, who had registered the FIR (Ex.P/6).

9. Albeit, there are certain discrepancies and variations in the statement of victim as well as other witnesses i.e. Jaiprakash (PW2) and Omprakash (PW3) about consumption of pills of sulphas by the victim and about mobile-phone call-details, messages not collected and video- clippings was also not recovered, but these things are immaterial because the petitioner/accused could have threatened the victim even without having any such video-clippings. The act of the petitioner/accused by which he threatened the victim for compelling for copulation is well-evident from the statement of victim (PW1), which is also corroborated by Jaiprakash (PW2) and Omprakash (PW3) and also with the version of FIR (Ex.P/6).

10. From the prosecution evidence, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner/accused had committed the acts of demand/request for sexual favour with the victim and also threatened her of causing injury to her person or her husband or her children and thereby committed criminal intimidation.

11. In Johar and Ors. v. Mangal Prasad & Anr. , AIR 2008 SC 1165 it has been opined that if the order of the trial Court not found to be passed without considering relevant evidence or passed by considering irrelevant evidence, interference by entering into merits and re-appreciating entire evidence would be improper. In State of 6 Cr.R.No.4513/2023 Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand & Ors. , AIR 2004 SC 4412 it is held that Court cannot exercise revisional power as a second appellate power.

12. The finding of the trial Court is based on the evidence adduced on record which is not required to be re-appreciated in detail by this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Further, during submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused failed to point out any material illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the trial Court as well as appellate Court with respect to conviction under sections 354-A and 506 (Part-II) of IPC .

13. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the petitioner/accused and therefore neither the trial Court committed any error in convicting the petitioner/accused under Sections 354-A and 506 (Part-II) of IPC nor did the appellate Court commit error in affirming the same.

14. So far as the conviction under Section 509 of IPC is concerned, it is expedient to quote the provisions of Section 509 of IPC "509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman,- Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine."

A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions and underlying essential ingredients, the foremost requirement is to have an intention to insult the 7 Cr.R.No.4513/2023 modesty of a woman. In the case at hand, from the evidence adduced before the trial Court, it is clear that the petitioner/accused was having intention to get sexual favour from the victim for which he had threatened her of killing her husband and children and also of making viral the video-clippings. Neither it is a case of prosecution nor any such evidence available on record indicates that the petitioner/accused had uttered any words, made any sound or gestured or even exhibited any object to the victim. The act of the petitioner/accused is covered under Section 354-A as well as Section 506 (Part-II) of IPC . Ergo, the conviction of the petitioner/accused under Section 509 of IPC being unlawful, deserves to be and is hereby set aside. Fine towards this offence shall be refunded to the petitioner/accused, if deposited.

15. So far as the quantum of sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 354-A and 506 (Part-II) of IPC for a period of one year with fine of Rs.2,000/- and one year with fine of Rs.2,000/- respectively, is concerned, on mature consideration, I find it adequate, which does not warrant any lenity.

16. Resultantly, no interference is required in the sentence imposed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court for the offence punishable under Sections 354-A and 506 (Part-II) of IPC .

17. Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed in part.

18. A copy of this order be sent forthwith to learned trial court/appellate court, Chhatarpur & concerned jail for information & necessary action.

(RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY) JUDGE sudesh Digitally signed by SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA Date: 2025.09.09 14:57:50 +05'30'