Rammu Maharaj @ Kantilal Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 21180 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rammu Maharaj @ Kantilal Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 December, 2023

                                                               1
                            IN        THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
                                                ON THE 13 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                               CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1829 of 2006

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RAMMU MAHARAJ @ KANTILAL DUBEY, S/O
                           RAMDAYAL DUBEY, R/O NEAR HARDOUR BABA,
                           HARDA, DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI ANAND NAYAK - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
                           AJAAK, HARDA, DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI SOMESH GUPTA - PANEL LAWYER)

                                    Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                           following:
                                                              JUDGMENT

The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 374(2) of

the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgement dated 13.9.2006 passed in S.T. No.140/2005 by the Sessions Judge, Harda whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for six months with fine of Rs.500/- and in default to further undergo 15 days R.I..

2. According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix lodged the report at Police Station AJAAK, Harda on 28.1.2004 whereby she reported the incident took place on 28.1.2004 at 10 a.m. when she was at her house. The appellant-

Rammu Maharaj @ Kantilal came to her house and assaulted by using criminal force with an intend to outrage her modesty. Upon her report, Police has registered the offence under Sections 354 and 506(B) of IPC and Section 3(1)

(xi) of SC/ST Act and after investigation filed the charge sheet. During trial, prosecutrix (PW-1) and Pawan (PW-2) supported the prosecution case. K.N. Vyas (PW-3) proved the lodging of F.I.R. and the fact of arrest of the accused whereas S.K. Thakur, DSP (PW-4) narrated in respect of the investigation and receipt of the caste certificate of prosecutrix. No other witness was examined by the prosecution. However, Jay Narayan Malviya and Rewaram were examined in defense to demonstrate that due to financial dispute the

prosecutrix has lodged false report against the appellant.

3. Learned trial Court after considering the evidence available on record, acquitted the appellant from the charges leveled under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act and Section 506-B of IPC, however, found him guilty under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to under go R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/-. During trial, the appellant remained in custody from 21.10.2004 to 22.10.2004.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that due to the financial dispute the false F.I.R. has been lodged and except the prosecutrix and her son, no one has supported the prosecution case. There is no independent witness in the matter and, therefore, the judgment of conviction be set aside and appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted from the charge.

5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

6. After considering the record of the trial Court, it appears that the prosecutrix has duly supported the incident in her statement and Pawan (PW-2)

has also narrated the prosecution story though he is hearsay witness. But the information regarding the incident was given to him by his mother immediately after the incident, therefore, his statement is also material.

7. After considering the same, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Court Harda. However, looking to the fact that the incident took place in the year 2004 and there was some financial transaction between the prosecutrix and the appellant, I deem it proper to reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone and enhance the fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.5000/-.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The sentence is reduced to the period which the appellant has already undergone and fine amount is enhanced to the extent of Rs.5000/-. It is made clear that if the appellant fails to deposit the enhanced amount of fine, within one month from today, he will have to undergo the remaining jail sentence as awarded by the trial Court.

(VINAY SARAF) JUDGE irf.