Justice Arun Kumar Jha reduces sentence for outraging modesty of a woman in 2009

Patna High Court did not deliver any judgement on September 9, 2025, it had delivered seven judgements on September 8, 2025 in Rishi Ram vs. The State of Bihar, Biswajit Dan vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., Dinesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Kundan Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Shipra Shikha, vs. The State of Bihar, Dhanuki Panchayat Primary Agriculture Credit Society Ltd. and Anr. vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Ram Babu Prasad Yadav. 

Justice Arun Kumar Jha reduces sentence for outraging modesty of a woman in 2009

In Rishi Ram vs. The State of Bihar, the 5-page long judgement by Justice Arun Kumar Jha concluded: ''the petitioner cannot be allowed to re-agitate the matter again in this revision petition. If the facts were appreciated in the light of the evidence and two subordinate courts recorded a concurrent finding, there is very little scope for this Court to interfere in the matter in revision. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and considering the fact that the petitioner has already undergone nine months of incarceration in this case and further considering the fact that he has no criminal antecedent and he is facing this lis from the last 16 years, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the petitioner, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Consequently, the conviction of the petitioner under the aforesaid sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed. 9. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed. 10. Let the petitioner be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.'' 

This  criminal revision was preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated November 28, 2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, Biharsharif, Nalanda in Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2018 arising out of Bind P.S. Case No. 133 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated December 1, 2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Nalanda at Biharsharif has been affirmed by which the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 509 and 504 IPC and was  sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with fine under Section 509 IPC and also was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with fine under Section 504 IPC and it wasordered that both the sentences were run concurrently, was affirmed. As per prosecution case, on November 9, 2009, when the informant was returning from her tuition class with her friends, the accused petitioner asked the informant to go fishing and take a bath in the water with him and on her refusal, the petitioner had misbehaved with her. Section 509 of IPC deals with the word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman. It reads: ''Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.'' Section 504 deals with the intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace. It reads:''Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.''

Earlier, Justice Bibek Chaudhuri had condoned the delay of 408 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner had filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the revisional application by 408 days. The order reads: ''the petitioner satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the revision application.''