Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh 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. 2273 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
SANTOSH S/O GOVERDHAN PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT
32 YEARS, R/O NAYA CHIEF HOUSE, PARASIA TEHSIL
PARASIA DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI BALDEV PATEL -ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
PARASIA DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI DILIP SHRIVASTAVA -G.A FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h 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 15.09.2011
passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Chhindwara in Special
Case No. 40 of 2009, whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the
appellant for commission of offence under Section 456, 354 of IPC and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and further
directed to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 6 months and further directed to pay fine of Rs.1000/- with
default stipulation respectively.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that incident occurred on
22.11.2008 when the complainant was alone in the her home. The accused is the
Landlord of the complainant and the accused person is said to have entered the
accommodation of complainant and caught hold of her hand. The complainant
got herself freed and raised alarm at that moment, wife of the appellant came
and took away the appellant from the place.
3. The present appellant was initially charge-sheeted for commission of
offence under Section 456, 354 of IPC and under section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST
Act. Charges were framed against the appellant/accused. Accused/appellant
denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
4. As per the evidence and the material adduced on behalf of the
prosecution, the Trial Court found the offence to be proved for offences as
mentioned in para-1 above.
5. This Court has gone through the entire evidence adduced on behalf of
the prosecution. The prosecution has examined (PW-2) Sunita Bunkar, who is
mother of the complainant, (PW-1) complainant and other witnesses. This
Court has carefully gone through the evidence of the material witnesses.
6. 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.
7. Thus, the conviction of the appellant as ordered by the trial court is
hereby upheld.
8. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances that deserve to be
taken in consideration so far as the sentence part of appellant/accused is
concerned. The incident took place in the year 2008 and accused/appellant has
faced trial and this appeal is pending since 2011, 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 (4 days) and to enhance
the total fine amount to Rs.7,500/-.
9. 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 (4 days), subject to
depositing the further fine amount of Rs.7,500/- within a period of three months
from today.
10. 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 as awarded by the
learned trial Court with default stipulations.
11. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
12. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, if any, are discharged.
13. 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.
14. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is partly allowed and
disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
tarun
