Mangilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 14809 MP

                         1
                                                         Cr.R. No.564/2014

              HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     BENCH AT INDORE

                           BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
                   ON THE 14th OF NOVEMBER, 2022


               CRIMINAL REVISION No. 564 of 2014

 BETWEEN:-
 MANGILAL S/O MADHOSINGH SONDIYA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
 OCCUPATION: NOT MENTIONED MOD BADLI, SUTHALIYA
 (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                        .....PETITIONER
 (BY SHRI R.S. PARMAR)
 AND
 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
 THRU. P.S. SUTHALIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
 (BY SHRI KAPIL MAHANT)


        This application coming on for judgment this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh passed the following:

                             JUDGMENT

Satyendra Kumar Singh, J.,

This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 09.05.2014 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Biaora in Criminal Appeal No.04/2012, whereby judgment and order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biaora, Distt. Rajgarh convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 354 of IPC for RI of 01 year with fine of Rs. 1000/- in Criminal Case

Cr.R. No.564/2014

No.634/11, was modified by reducing his jail sentence for RI of 06 months with same fine amount of Rs.1000/-.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 20.05.2011 at about 05:00 PM, prosecutrix aged about 30 years was sitting at her grocery shop, petitioner came there and had tried to show obscene photographs to the prosecutrix and when she objected, he told her to go with her inside of the house. Petitioner caught hold her hand and when she screamed, Dhapubai came on the spot and after seeing her, petitioner fled away. On the same day at about 06:30 PM, prosecutrix lodged the FIR (Ex.P-1) against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. Statements of prosecutrix, her husband and witness Dhapubai were recorded and petitioner was arrested. After completion of investigation, filed the charge- sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 354 of IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner did not wish to challenge his conviction and he confined the argument only to the extent of the sentence awarded to him. Admittedly, petitioner and prosecutrix are the resident of same village and known to each other. It has been alleged against the petitioner that he caught hold the hand of the prosecutrix. During trial, petitioner has already suffered about a month incarceration out of six months sentenced awarded to him. In view of the above, keeping in mind the nature of allegations alleged against the petitioner and also the period of custody already suffered by him, the period of his jail sentence be reduced to the period when he has already undergone.

4. Per contra, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that the judgment was passed by the Trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Same is well reasoned

Cr.R. No.564/2014

establishing the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, confirming the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence, the revision filed by the petitioner may be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

6. Prosecutrix (PW-1) deposed that on the date of incident, at about 05:00 PM, when she was sitting at her grocery shop and her husband went to Suthalia Market, petitioner came there and had shown obscene photographs to her and told to go with him inside the house. She further deposed that petitioner caught hold her hand and when she screamed, Dhapubai came on the spot and after seeing her, petitioner fled away. Dhapubai (PW-3) deposed that after hearing hue and cry, when she went towards the place of incident, she saw the petitioner fleeing away.

7. Head Constable, Birbal (PW-5) deposed that on the same day, on the oral complaint made by the prosecutrix, he lodged FIR (Ex.P-1) at Police Station Suthalia, Distt. Rajgarh. Prosecutrix's husband (PW-2) also supports the prosecution case, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the prosecutrix (PW-1) which is supported by statement of Dhapubai (PW-3) who is wife of the petitioner and also from the FIR (Ex.P-1) lodged just after the incident. Hence, trial Court has not committed any error in finding this fact as proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner with an intent to outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix, caught hold her hand.

8. So far as the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned, admittedly, incident took place in the year 2011 i.e. before enforcement of the Criminal Amendment Act, 2013 and at that time maximum period prescribed for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC was 2 years. Petitioner and prosecutrix both are resident of same village and it is apparent from the FIR (Ex.P-1) lodged by the prosecutrix,

Cr.R. No.564/2014

that they were known to each other. Petitioner is facing trial since 2011. So also keeping in view the fact that petitioner have suffered about a month incarceration, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be served, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him with fine as imposed by the appellant Court.

9. Consequently, this criminal revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the petitioner passed by the trial Court and modified by the appellate Court under Section 354 of IPC is maintained. But, the sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid offence is set aside and instead thereof, the petitioner are sentenced to the period already undergone by him in jail for about a month with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

10. With the aforesaid, the criminal revision is disposed of finally.

11. If petitioner are in jail, he be set at liberty if not required in any other case.

The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court record forthwith alongwith the copy of this judgment. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the concerned jail authorities for its speedy compliance and necessary action.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Satyendra Kumar Singh) Judge

vibha/-

VIBHA PACHORI 2022.11.16 10:20:40 +05'30'