2026:JHHC:10606 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 38 of 2015 -------- Shailesh Kumar Pandey @ Babloo Pandey, S/o Shri Raj Mohan Pandey, R/o-Mohalla Abadganj, P.O. & P.S.-Daltonganj, Dist. Palamau ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Raje Kumari Kujur, W/o Man Singh Tiriya, R/o-vill-Chainpur, P.O. & P.S.-Mahuatand, Dist.-Latehar …… Opp. Parties -------- CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner :Mr. Vinay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the State :Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P. -------- Order No. 18/ Dated: 13th April, 2026 Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP. 2. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 20.12.2014 passed in Cr. Appeal. No. 102 of 2012 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Palamau whereby and whereunder learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred against the order of conviction dated 03.08.2012 passed by the Railway Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj in G.R. Case No. 1512 of 2008, T.R. No. 17 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced him to R.I. for six months. 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 05.09.2008 at 09:30 pm, the informant was travelling on Inter City Express and when she was going to bathroom to discharge her natural call, one person namely Bablu Pandey approached there and caught her waist. On alarm, her associates Dipanjali Tirky and Manoj Kumar Sahu 2026:JHHC:10606 2 Cr. Revision No. 38 of 2015 came and caught Bablu Pandey. The Accused person was drunk. The informant alleged that the accused was trying to take her inside the bathroom with intention to outrage her modesty. 4. On the written complaint by the informant, Rail P.S. Daltonganj Case No. 19/2008 was registered under Section 341 & 354 of the IPC. On investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused Bablu Pandey for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC. Accordingly, cognizance was taken. The substance of accusation against the accused Bablu Pandey was explained to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgement was passed, which has been assailed in this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner without touching the merits of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence awarded to him. It is further submitted that the occurrence took place while the present petitioner and the victim lady (informant) were travelling in a train. It is alleged that while the informant girl was going to toilet, meanwhile, from behind, the present petitioner caught waist of her and she immediately raised alarm. Then, her associates caught hold of the present petitioner and handed over to the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC and out of six months rigorous imprisonment awarded to the petitioner, he has already undergone substantial part of imprisonment i.e. about 3 months. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has already been 2026:JHHC:10606 3 Cr. Revision No. 38 of 2015 punished sufficiently. Accordingly, his sentence may be altered from R.I. of six months to the period of imprisonment already undergone. 7. Learned APP defends the concurrent findings about the guilt of petitioner, on merits but has not seriously disputed about the imprisonment of three months already undergone by the petitioner during trial of the case. 8. Considering the nature of offence committed by the petitioner, genesis and manner of occurrence and such type of occurrence may happen while travelling in congestion of passengers in train for using the toilet. Therefore, I find sufficient reasons to alter the sentence of the petitioner from six months R.I. as awarded by the learned trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court to the imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. 9. In view of the above, this criminal revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above. 10. The petitioner is on bail; hence he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged. 11. I.A, if any, also stands disposed of. 12. Let a copy of this order along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 13.04.2026 Basant Uploaded on 16/04/2026