GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON SATYENDRA KUMAR PRASAD V/S THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

GUWAHATI, India, Feb. 10 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Jan. 9:

1. Heard Mr. J.H. Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent.

2. This is an appeal u/s 397 Cr.PC read with Sections 401 & 482 Cr.PC against the impugned judgment & order dated 02.05.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) at Bongaigaon in Criminal Appeal No. 62(4)/2014 upholding the judgment & order dated 19.11.2014 passed by learned JMFC, Bongaigaon arising out of G.R. Case No. 133/2014 convicting the accused/petitioner to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year for the offence committed u/s 354 IPC and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-in default Simple Imprisonment for another 3 months.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 24.02.2014 an FIR was lodged by respondent no. 2 before the North Bongaigaon P.P. alleging inter alia that on 24.02.2014 at 1:45 PM she along with her mother-in-law Smt. Kathani Ray aged about 65 years went to Swagat Hospital for X-Ray as per suggestion of doctor. But, at the time of taking X-Ray of her mother-in-law, the accused touched her chest outraging her modesty. Accordingly, the case was registered under Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 89/2014 u/s 354 IPC and started investigation. On completion of the investigation the police filed charge-sheet against the present accused/petitioner u/s 354 IPC before the learned CJM and the case was accordingly transferred to the Court of learned JMFC for disposal.

4. After appearance of the accused/petitioner he was explained with the offence to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses including the informant and one witness was examined by the defence. The defence took the plea of total denial at the time of his examination u/s 313 Cr.PC. After completion of the trial and hearing the argument put forward by learned counsel for both sides, judgment is accordingly passed by the learned Trial Court below convicting the accused/petitioner u/s 354 IPC and sentenced him as stated above.

6. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment & order passed by the learned JMFC dated 19.11.2014 the present accused/petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. But, the appeal is also accordingly dismissed upholding the order passed by the learned Trial Court below.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=oVz058q2ZLjDVEITM0Vw1PYbZZ%2FOYexdT%2FkanrYSi%2F8rHr7h1AYGVFrr2iWE8psL&caseno=Crl.Rev.P./320/2015&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010020372015&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.