Damodar Alias Damol vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7100 MP

                                  1
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         AT GWALIOR
                                BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                          ON THE 11th OF MAY, 2022

                  CRIMINAL REVISION No. 901 of 2022

        Between:-
        DAMODAR ALIAS DAMOL S/O PRABHULAL ,
        AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRI.
        VILL. BADHURIA PS FATEHGARH (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

                                                              .....PETITIONER
        (BY SHRI RISHIKESH BOHRE-ADVOCATE)

        AND

        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE
        POLICE STATION P.S. FATEHGARH (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

                                                           .....RESPONDENTS
        (BY SHRI PRAMOD PACHORI-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR )

      T h i s revision coming on for admission and hearing on I.A.
No.3991/2022 this day, the court passed the following:
                                   ORDER

This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by

the petitioner against the judgment dated 19.01.2022 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Appeal No.500089/2016, by which his appeal has been dismissed and the Appellate Court maintained the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna in Criminal Case No. 2311/2011, by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/-.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that on

28.09.2011 at 12.30 PM prosecutrix, a married lady, aged about 35 years lodged an FIR against petitioner and two others at Police Station Fatehgarh, District Guna alleging that on the date of incident on 27.09.2011 in the evening at 7.00 PM she was returning from market. On the way she met accused Nandlal and petitioner Damodar on one motorcycle and on another motorcycle co-accused Man Singh. Man Singh told her that he is going to Badhuria and will drop her at her house. On his invitation she sat on his motorcycle. All of them stopped in Badhuria crossing and thereafter accused Man Singh with bad intention caught hold of her hand. When she objected, another accused Nandlal with bad intention caught hold of her another hand. Thereafter petitioner

Damodar pressed her breast. She cried and after leaving them ran away. Her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) came there and on seeing her they started abusing her with filthy language and threatened her by saying that if you lodge report she will be killed. Thereafter along with her sister-in-law she came to her house and narrated the story to her husband and lodged report. On her report, crime under the aforesaid offence was registered. She was sent for medical examination. No external injury was found. Accused persons were arrested. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed.

3. Learned trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner along with accused Man Singh for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. His appeal was dismissed by Appellate Court. After dismissal of appeal, petitioner has surrendered on 3.3.2022 and since then he is in jail custody.

4. Aggrieved by aforesaid conviction and sentence of Court below the petitioner has filed this revision on the ground that on the basis of contradictory evidence, Court below erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner.

5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

6. After perusing the record, it is apparent that the counsel for the petitioner has not raised any legal ground in the revision to point out as to what illegality has been committed by the Court below in convicting and sentencing the petitioner.

7. The Apex Court in the case of Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration reported in (1975) 4 SCC 649 has held that, the jurisdiction of High Court in a criminal revision application is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of the evidence. The said judgment has been relied by the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and Others reported in (2004) 7 SCC 659).

8. In the opinion of this Court, the Court below has dealt with every aspect of the matter and, therefore, the decision making process adopted by the Court below cannot be found fault with and no illegality has been committed in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere in the matter.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is the first offender and he should be released on probation.

10. Hon. Apex Court in the case of Ajahar Ali Vs. State of West

Bengal, (2013) 10 SCC 31 has held that benefit of probation is not available to the persons convicted of offence under section 354 of the I.P.C. as the offence relating to modesty of a woman cannot be treated to be a trivial or lenient view cannot be taken and just and proper sentence should be imposed. Hence, prayer with regard to releasing the petitioner on probation is rejected.

11. Offence is of 27.09.2011. For the offence under Section 354 of IPC, punishment provided is extended to two years, or with fine or with both. Thereafter amendment came on 3.2.2013 and the minimum sentence imposed was amended for one year which may extend to five years. At the time of commission of offence no minimum period of sentence was prescribed. From last 11 years he is attending the Court proceedings. He is in custody from 3.3.2022. In this situation, looking to all circumstances of the case, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in the jail further. The petitioner has suffered the jail sentence near about two months. In these circumstances, in my considered opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if the petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him, as mentioned above and the fine amount be enhanced.

12. Consequently, the criminal revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner recorded by the Court below for the offence under Section 354 of IPC is hereby affirmed. However, the sentence of the petitioner under the aforesaid offence recorded by the Court below is hereby set aside and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in jail and the fine amount is enhanced to Rs. 5000/-. On deposit of the aforesaid enhanced fine amount before the trial Court, the same be paid to the victim/prosecutrix, as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount, the petitioner shall have to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The amount of fine already deposited be adjusted.

13. On deposit of the aforesaid enhanced fine amount by the petitioner, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence.

14. The prosecutrix, PW1 be informed about the entitlement of the aforesaid compensation before sending the record to the record room.

15. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately to the concerned Court below along with a copy of this order for its compliance and necessary action.

Certified copy as per rules.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE vv

VALSALA VASUDEVAN 2022.05.14 15:17:37 +05'30'