Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dipak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 27 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2610 of 2007
BETWEEN:-
DIPAK S/O SURESH CHAND BHARGAV, AGED ABOUT 23
YEARS, R/O CHIKLODKALA DISTT.RAISEN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI AMIT UPADHYAY - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DISTT.RAISEN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI RAVINDRA RAJPUT - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (in short 'Code') assails the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 22/11/2007 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST(Prevention of
Atrocoties Act), Raisen in Special Case No. 19/2007, whereby the appellant has
been convicted for offence under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo
RI for 6 months and to pay fine amount of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.
2. As per prosecution story, 01/12/2006 at about 7:30 a.m. appellant tried
to outrage the modesty of prosecutrix (PW 1) by using criminal force. The FIR
(Ex. P/1) was lodged to Police Station AJAK District Raisen, whereby Crime
No. 465/2006 was registered against the appellant for commission of offence
punishable under Section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989 and 354 of IPC.
Investigation ensued and after completion of it, charge-sheet was laid before
the court of competent jurisdiction.
3 . After duly appreciated the evidence on record, vide impugned
judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned here-in-above,
which has been challenged by way of this appeal.
4 . A t the very outset of his submissions, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that he does not wish to press this appeal on the point of
conviction. As far as sentence is concerned, he submits that at the time of
alleged incident the appellant was young boy of aged about 23 years, who is
facing the trial and present appeal for more than 17 years and he do not have
any criminal record, therefore, he prays for setting aside of sentence.
5 . Learned Panel Lawyer vehemently opposed the prayer vehemently
arguing that the sentence imposed by the trial Court is just and proper, which
need not be altered/modified to any extent.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The evidence adduced in support of the allegations with regard to the
offence under Section 354 of IPC is found to be clear, cogent and consistent.
The same is free from any material infirmity and anomaly. The testimony of the
prosecutrix (PW 1) is sufficient to convict the appellant for aforesaid offence,
which is also supported with FIR (Ex.P/1), therefore, it cannot be said that the
learned trial Court has committed any error in recording conviction of the
appellants for the offence under Section 354 of IPC.
8. As regards, sentence prayer made on behalf of the appellant appears
to be reasonable. Incident was not premeditated and occurred at sudden
impulse. No criminal antecedents are attributed to the appellants. The factum of
custody has also not been disputed and looking to the fact that the incident
occurred in the year 2006 and since then appellant is facing trial and present
appeal fore more than 17 years, therefore, looking to the aforesaid background,
the ends of justice would be served if setting aside the jail sentence of
appellant, fine amount is enhanced.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the
appellant is hereby affirmed. As regards the jail sentence, the same is hereby set
aside, however, the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/-,
which will be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation. The appellant is directed
to pay remaining fine amount within a period of two months from the date of
passing of this order, failing which he will have to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of six months.
10. Record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent
forthwith to the concerned Court for information and necessary action.
Certified copy as per rules.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
skt
