JUDGEMENT
JAY SENGUPTA.J. -
(1.)This is a revisional application challenging a judgment and order dtd. 21/11/2023 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, North
and Middle Andaman at Mayabunder, Andaman and Nicobar Islands in
Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2023, thereby affirming the judgment and
order dtd. 24/4/2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, North and Middle Andaman at Mayabunder in connection with GR
Case No. 425 of 2015 convicting the petitioner of offences punishable
under Sec. 354-A(1)(iv) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentence him to suffer simple imprisonment for terms of three months
and to pay of fine of rupees five hundred each under the two provisions,
the substantive sentences having to run concurrently, along with a
default clause.
(2.)The prosecution case is that on 21/10/2015 a police team comprising of the victim police constable and other police personnel were
proceeding to Lall Tikrey for maintaining law and order in the eve of
Durga Puja. When they reached near Webi junction, they received an
information that one person was creating nuisance in the area. The
police party reached the place, apprehended the miscreant and took him
Police Station while rest of the police party including the victim stayed
back at the junction. As the place was dark, they decided to go under the
street light in front of a shop. When they reached the street light the
accused-appellant who was standing in front of the shop, asked the
complainant victim the sexually coloured question "Kya darling challan
karne aai hay kya?" On this, Mayabunder Police Station Case No. 118
dtd. 21/5/2015 was registered under Sec. 354-A (1) (iv) and 509 of
the Indian Penal Code. The accused was arrested and subsequently
enlarged on bail at the police station. A chargeseet dtd. 8/11/2015 was
submitted under the said provisions. On 14/3/2016, the said charges
were framed and accused pleaded not guilty. A trial was conducted with
11 prosecution witnesses.
(3.)Out of the ten prosecution witnesses examined, PW-1 was the scribe of the FIR. He was a Head Constable. Apparently the time of
occurrence was kept blank. PW-2 was the Police Constable and was both
pre and post occurrence witness. PW-3 was a lady Constable and an eye
witness. PW-4 was a Police personnel and pre-occurrence witness. PW-5
was a male Police Constable and an eye witness. He deposed that the
accused had told the said word by way of a joke. PW-6 was the victim
lady. PW-7 was a lady Constable and an eye witness. PW-8 was a male
Constable and was an eye witness. PW-9 was another Police personal
who was apparently a post occurrence witness. But, he had a retina
problem as well. PW-10 was the Investigating Officer of the case. In his
cross, he stated that there was no light nearby. PW-11 was the Station
House Officer of the Police Station who subsequently filed the
chargesheet. He did not corroborate the victim 's version that she called
up from the spot.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.