Udalsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 15236 MP

                                   1
                                                   Cr.R. No. 1010/2014

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT INDORE
                               BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH

                  ON THE 21st OF NOVEMBER, 2022




              CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1010 of 2014

 BETWEEN:-
 UDALSINGH S/O AMARSINGH RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
 OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE JINDAKHEDA, TEHSIL
 SANWER P.S. SANWER (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                     .....PETITIONER
 (BY SHRI YOGESH KUMAR GUPTA, ADVOCATE)

 AND
 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH COLLECTOR / DISTRICT
 MAGISTRATE THRU. P.S. SANWER (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
 (BY MS MAMTA SHANDILYA, GOVT. ADVOCATE)

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

                         JUDGEMENT

This criminal revision u/S 397 r/W 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 08.08.2014, passed by the Court of 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No 268/2014, whereby the judgment dated 14.03.2014 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable u/S 354 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer RI for 01 year passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sanwer

Cr.R. No. 1010/2014

Distt. Indore in Cr. Case No. 226/2006, was affirmed.

2. Prosecution story, in brief is as follows :-

On 06.04.2006, at Village Jindakheda, at about 18:30 hours when prosecutrix went to nearby place 'hodi' to fetch water, petitioner came out of his house and gave her gesture to come inside his house, she denied on which petitioner, with an intent to outrage her modesty, caught hold of her hand, grabbed her mouth also and dragged her towards his house. On hearing prosecurtrix's screams, Bhagwan Singh living in neighbourhood came there and petitioner left the prosecutrix and managed to escape from there. Prosecutrix went home and told the incident to her father and Meherbaan Singh and on the next day i.e. 07.04.2006 at about 11:45 hours, lodged FIR (Ex. P-1) at P.S. Sanwer Distt Indore against the petitioner for offences punishable u/S 354 of IPC. After preparing spot map(Ex. P-2), statements of witnesses were recorded and petitioner was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex. P-3) After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed before the Court of JMFC, Sanwer, Distt. Indore.

3. Learned Court of JMFC, Sanwer considering the material prima- facie available on record, framed the charges under Sections 354 of IPC against the petitioner, who abjured his guilt and prayed for trial.

4. Learned Court of JMFC, Sanwer after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 14.03.2014, convicted the petitioner u/S 354 of IPC. Petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate Court whereby learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by learned

Cr.R. No. 1010/2014

Court of JMFC. Being aggrieved with the said judgement of conviction and order of sentence, petitioner has preferred this revision for setting aside the impugned judgement and discharging him from the charges framed against him.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits it has been alleged against the petitioner that he caught hold hand with an intent to outrage modesty of prosecutrix. He submits that petitioner does not wish to challenge the findings with regards to conviction and confines his prayer to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner. He further submits that admittedly, incident took place in the year 2006 and since then, petitioner is facing trial. He has already suffered about 45 days of jail incarceration out of 01 year of sentence awarded to him. Hence, upholding his conviction, the sentence awarded to him be reduced to the period already undergone by him. In support of his above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service, several judgements passed by this Court as well as co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mangilal Vs. The State of M.P. [Cr.R. No. 564/2014], Nitesh Vs. The State of M.P. [Cr.R. No. 595/2014], Balla alias Balai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh[Cr.R. No. 2/2005], Bojendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh[Cr.R. No. 1798/2016].

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State, while supporting the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence submits that the judgement was passed by the Trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Same is well reasoned establishing the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore,

Cr.R. No. 1010/2014

confirming the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence, the revision filed by the petitioner may be dismissed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

8. Prosecutrix (PW-1) deposed that on the date of incident, when she had gone to nearby place 'hodi' to fetch water, petitioner came out of his house and gave her gesture to come inside his house and when she denied , petitioner with an intent to outrage her modesty, caught hold of her hand, grabbed her mouth also and dragged her towards his house. She further deposed that on hearing her screams, Bhagwan Singh living in neighbourhood came there, then petitioner left her and managed to escape from there. Bhagwan Singh (PW-2), although in his cross- examination denied to see the incident, but in his examination-in-chief, he has deposed that after hearing prosecutrix's screams, when he reached the spot, he saw, petitioner fleeing from the spot. Shivnarayan(PW-3), father of the prosecutrix deposed that after the incident, prosecutrix narrated the incident to him.

9. In view of the above, there is no reason to disbelieve prosecutrix's statement supported by FIR (Ex. P-1) that petitioner caught hold of her hand with an intent to outrage prosecutrix's modesty. Hence, this Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court as regards the conviction of the petitioner under Section 354 of IPC.

10. So far as the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned, admittedly, incident took place in the year 2006 i.e. before enforcement of the Criminal Amendment Act, 2013 and at that time

Cr.R. No. 1010/2014

maximum period prescribed for the offence punishable u/S 354 of IPC was 02 years. Petitioner is facing trial since 2006 and considering the citations cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so also keeping in view the fact that petitioner has suffered about 45 days of 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 u/S 354 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him with fine as imposed by the appellate Court.

11. Consequently, this criminal revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the petitioner passed by the Trial Court and affirmed 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 is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in jail i.e. 45 days.

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

13. If petitioner is 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.

(Satyendra Kumar Singh) Judge sh/-

SEHAR HASEEN 2022.11.25 12:26:04 +05'30'