Dr. Atmanand Shrivastava vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This Revision is directed against the judgment dated 05/08/2019 passed by Ninth Additional Sessions Judge, Satna (MP) in Criminal Appeal No.

22/2018, whereby the judgment dated 07/02/2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satna in Criminal Case No. 1309/2007 has been confirmed and

the applicant has been convicted for the offence under Section 377, 506 read with 511 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years (three

counts) with fine of Rs.2000/-, with default stipulations.

I.A. No.3919/2020, I.A. No. 4012/2020 & I.A. No.5252/2020, which are applications for taking documents on record are taken up, considered and

allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. Documents annexed along with the said I.As are taken on record.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 10/04/2007 one Rajesh Verma reported incident to police station, City Kotwali Satna that his son was

abused sexually by the present applicant. Allegation against the applicant is also that he made this type of gesture against other teenagers also and

compelled them to touch his private part. An offence was registered against the applicant at Crime No.182/2007 for the offences punishable under

Sections 377, 506 read with Section 511 of IPC. The matter was investigated and after investigation charge sheet was filed.

The charge was framed against the applicant for the offences under Sections 377, 511 of IPC. The applicant abjured his guilt. The trial Court after

conclusion of evidence convicted and sentenced the applicant as aforesaid. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred criminal appeal, which was

dismissed by lower Appellate Court. Hence, this revision application.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the prosecution story as put forth appears to be unnatural. The applicant has been falsely

implicated in the case. It is further submitted that in entire prosecution story the date of incident time, year has not come into account, even the place

of occurrence of incident has not been confirmed by the prosecution agency. More over the complainant Rajesh Verma has become Hostile. There

are material ommissions and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the courts below erred in convicting and sentencing

the applicant and the judgment of conviction is unsustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the decisions by

this Court in the case of Dr. S.F. Ali (Saiyed Farooq Ali) Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [Criminal Revision No.423/2013] decided on 13/03/2013 and

in the case of Manoj Jharia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2013) 2 MPWN 103].

On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent/State has supported the judgment of conviction and submitted that the trial Court has

meticulously examined the material and no case for interference by this Court is warranted.

Heard the submissions raised by learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.

Suresh Yadav (PW-1) has deposed in his deposition as under:-

“Suresh Yadav (PW-1)

25 ,

,

â€

Aditya Majhi (PW-2) who is victim has stated in para 9 of his deposition as under:-

,

Anoop Kushwaha (PW-3) has stated in his deposition as under:-

5.

Rajesh Verma (PW-4) has stated in his deposition as under:-

.

â€

From the above statements of the prosecution witnesses, it is reflected that there was previous enmity between the complainant and the accused.

The perusal of medical certificate filed through various IAs it has also come on record that applicant is ill and his ailment is going on which indicates

that the applicant might not have committed the alleged crime. Rajesh Verma (PW-4) who is father of the victim has himself not supported the

prosecution version and has turned hostile which itself puts dent on the prosecution story and in these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for

benefit of doubt.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the health status of the applicant, I am of the considered view

that this revision deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the Revision filed by the applicant is hereby allowed and the judgments of conviction and sentence passed against the applicant by the

Courts below are hereby set aside and the applicant is acquitted of the charge under under Sections 377, 506 read with 511 of IPC. The fine amount if

deposited by the applicant shall be refunded to him.

As the applicant is in jail, it is directed that he be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned along with record of the case.