Madhya Pradesh High Court
Uma Shankar Sahu 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 VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 27 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2109 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
UMA SHANKAR SAHU S/O LALLU SAHU, AGED ABOUT
28 YEARS, WARD NO.4, SHAHPURA, P.S. SHAHPURA,
DISTT. DINDORI, MADHYA PRADESH.
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI K.K. GAUTAM - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
SHAHPURA, DISTRICT DINDORI, MADHYA PRADESH.
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI NARENDRA SINGH LODHI - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing, this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.08.2015
passed by Special Judge, Dindori in Special Case No.29/2014, whereby the
learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant for commission of offence under
Section 354 (D) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/-.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the complainant is working as
Anganwadi worker and whenever she has to travel through the way, the
accused-appellant stalked the complainant and at times offered to give lift to the
complainant on his motor cycle and sometimes uttered obscene words.
3. Initially, the charge sheet was filed under Sections 341 and 354 (D) of
IPC and also under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, the trial Court has found
offence under Section 354 (D) of IPC proved against the accused.
4. This Court has gone through the entire evidence adduced on behalf of
the prosecution. The prosecution has examined PW-2 complainant, PW-4 who
is husband of complainant and other witnesses. This Court has carefully gone
through the evidence of the material witnesses and eye-witnesses.
5. After having perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is
found that the findings recorded by the Trial Court upholding the guilt of the
accused-appellant are impeccable and the prosecution has succeeded in proving
the case against the accused-appellant. There is nothing in cross examination of
the witnesses that may demolish the prosecution case. Thus, there is nothing in
the said findings of the trial court that can be said to be erroneous or perverse,
warranting interference by this Court in Appellate jurisdiction.
6. Thus, the conviction of the appellant as ordered by the trial court is
hereby upheld.
7. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances that deserve to be
taken in consideration so far as the sentence part is concerned. The
appellant/accused is first offender and the incident took place in the year 2015
and accused/appellant has faced trial and this appeal is pending since 2015, the
accused/appellant has been under trial or appearing before the Court as
condition to suspension of sentence since long. Nothing has come on record
regarding misuse of conditions of bail/suspension of sentence during the long
period since the prosecution, trial and appeal are pending. Thus, this Court
deems it fit to reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already
undergone by him (two days) and to enhance the fine amount from Rs..1,000/-
to Rs.5,000/-.
8. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned conviction
is maintained. However, the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for the period he has already undergone (two days), subject to
depositing the further fine amount of Rs.5,000/- within a period of three months
from today.
9. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Court is
not deposited within a period of three months from today, then the original
sentence would come into operation and appellant shall be taken into custody
or he would surrender himself to serve the entire jail sentence of six months as
awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.
10. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
11. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, if any, are discharged.
12. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court record
alongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for information
and necessary compliance.
13. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed and
disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
