Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Bhavanbhai Laxmanbhai Pagi, was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Modasa, in Criminal Case No.891 of 1997 for offences under Sections 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,500/- under Section 354 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323 IPC. The conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.7, Sabarkantha at Modasa, in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2005 on 12.06.2007. Aggrieved, the applicant filed the present revision application under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the Gujarat High Court. The High Court heard learned Advocate Mr. J.V. Japee for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Rohan Raval for the respondent-State. Upon scrutiny of the evidence, the Court found that the testimony of the prosecutrix was inconsistent and contradictory, and the other prosecution witnesses did not support the case. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the applicant of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Outraging Modesty - Section 354 IPC - Conviction based on inconsistent and contradictory testimony of prosecutrix - Held that when the sole eyewitness's testimony is riddled with contradictions and lacks corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained - Benefit of doubt must be given to accused (Paras 4-5). B) Criminal Law - Simple Hurt - Section 323 IPC - Conviction set aside as prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt - Held that the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses was not reliable (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicant under Sections 354 and 323 IPC is sustainable in law given the inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution evidence.
Final Decision
The revision application is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.06.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Modasa, in Criminal Case No.891 of 1997, as confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.7, Sabarkantha at Modasa, in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2005, are quashed and set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the offences under Sections 354 and 323 IPC. Bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent testimony
- Lack of corroboration
- Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Revision jurisdiction under CrPC
