Soukinlal @ Bantu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1559 MP

1                                                    Cr.R.130 -2022

     THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, INDORE BENCH
                      Criminal Revision No. 130 -2022

       (Soukinla @ Bantu s/o Devilal Ahir vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)

Indore, Dated: 03.02.2022


       Shri Rishi Raj Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

       Ms.    Seema      Maheshwari,       learned      counsel   for    the

respondent/State.

       Shri Rohit Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.

       Records of the courts below are available.

       With the consent of the counsel for the parties, this criminal

revision is heard and disposed of finally.

                                ORDER

1. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section

401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred

against the judgment dated 28.9.2021, passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge to Special Judge, Jawad, District-

Neemuch (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.8/2018 thereby the

learned Judge has affirmed the judgment dated 21.6.2017 passed

in Criminal Case No.293/2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate,

First Class, Jawad, District-Neemuch, whereby the petitioner was

found guilty for offence punishable under Section 354(A) of the

I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one

year with fine of Rs.500/-.

2 Cr.R.130 -2022

2. Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that

the petitioner has been convicted for offence punishable under

Section 354(A) of the IPC and a short sentence of only six months'

rigorous imprisonment has been awarded to him on an allegation

that on 11.4.2014, he caught hold of the hand of the victim and

told her that he wants to keep her and wants to marry her but when

the victim started shouting, the petitioner left the spot threatening

her of the dire consequences. Counsel has further submitted that

the petitioner has already suffered the ordeal of the trial as also of

the appeal and even otherwise, the parties have also entered into a

compromise as they are residing in the same locality. It is further

submitted that the petitioner has already undergone one month and

eight days of incarceration and the fine of Rs. 500/- has already

been deposited in the trial court, hence, his sentence may be

reduced to the sentence already undergone by him.

3. Shri Rohit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the

complainant has also submitted that the petition may be disposed

of as the parties have entered into a compromise.

4. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the

prayer and it is submitted that no error has been committed by the

courts below in convicting the petitioner and as such no

interference is called for.

3 Cr.R.130 -2022

5. On due consideration of the rival submissions, and on

perusal of the record, this Court finds that the only allegation

against the petitioner is that of holding the hand of the victim, who

was aged about 22 years and was already married at the time of the

incident and there is no other overt act attributed to him. In such

facts and circumstance of the case, when there is no minimum

sentence provided and maximum sentence can extend up to three

years, or with fine, or with both, considering the fact that the

petitioner has already suffered the ordeal of the trial and the appeal

since 2014, and has already undergone more than one month's of

incarceration, although this Court uphold the conviction of the

petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 354 (A) of the

IPC, in the interest of justice, the custodial sentence of the

petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. However,

the fine amount is further enhanced to Rs.1,500/- which shall

be deposited before the concerned trial Court within a period of

one month's time from the date of release of the petitioner. On

failure to do so, the petitioner shall undergo the remaining

sentence as directed by the Courts below.

6. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part to the

extent herein above indicated. The petitioner is in jail; he be

released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

4 Cr.R.130 -2022

7. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for

compliance.

Certified copy, as per rules.

(Subodh Abhayankar ) JUDGE

moni

Digitally signed by MONI RAJU Date: 2022.02.04 17:34:06 +05'30'