- (1.) HEARD Sri Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist states that the revisionist has obtained bail from the court of C.J.M., Fatehpur.
(3.) THE brief facts of the case are that F.I.R. was lodged by Ramraj at case crime no.365 of 1995 against the revisionist under sections 452 and 354 IPC, P.S. Bindki, District Fatehpur with the allegations that on 8.11.1995 at about 1 p.m. when his sister was doing cleansing work outside the house, Bachchharj came at the door and caught her hand with bad intention and upon alarm raised by his sister, Ram Kumar and Durga reached for rescue but revisionist fled away. After investigation charge sheet was filed and after recording statements of prosecutrix as P.W.1, first informant Ramraj as P.W.2, Smt. Maya Devi as P.W.3, and head constable Radhey Shyam Upadhyay as P.W.4 in prosecution evidence, recording the statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. and hearing counsel for parties, the Magistrate acquitted the accused revisionist from the charges framed under section 452 IPC but convicted him under section 354 IPC and sentenced for six months imprisonment vide judgment and order dated 17.9.2009. The convict revisionist filed Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2009 before Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, which was dismissed on 19.2.2010 with clarification that the period of sentence will be of simple imprisonment. Feeling aggrieved the convicted revisionist has preferred this revision. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that though there are allegations of dragging of the proscutrix by the revisionist, the prosecutrix has stated only of catching hold of her hand and has not supported the allegation of dragging her; that the witnesses Ram Kumar and Durga mentioned in F.I.R. have not been produced while presence of Ramraj P.W.2 is doubtful on the place of occurrence; that Maya Devi the sister -in -law (jethani) has also been produced and the prosecution has failed to produce material witnesses and has also failed to prove charges under section 354 IPC against the revisionist; that in this case, F.I.R. is highly belated and has been lodged after a period of more than five hours and the allegations of demand of bed sheet does not find place in F.I.R. and it has been developed during evidence; that in any case even if it may be presumed that the hand of prosecutrix was caught by the revisionist, no offence under section 354 IPC is made against him and the prosecutrix appears to be consenting party; that the prosecutrix is a married lady and there is a distance of only 200 meter between her maika and sasural; that the prosecution has failed to prove motive behind the crime and the conviction order passed by two courts below is liable to be set aside and the revisionist is liable to be acquitted. He further argued that in any case if, for any reason the court comes to the conclusion that the conviction is not liable to be set aside and either he may released on probation or the sentence may be reduced and converted to fine only in lieu of imprisonment.;