Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Meena vs The State Of M.P. on 28 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 28 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1843 of 1998
BETWEEN:-
SMT. MEENA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, W/O RAVI, R/O
VILLAGE ABER, POLICE CHOWKI: KOTAR, P.S.
RAMPUR- BAGHELAN, DISTRICT : SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI HEMANT SEN - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DILIP SHRIVASTAVA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal has been filed under Section 351 of the Cr.P.C. against the
judgment dated 5.5.1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Satna in M.J.C. No.
5/1997 convicting the appellant under Section 193 of I.P.C.. and sentencing her
to simple imprisonment for 3 months.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that appellant is a married lady and
belongs to Scheduled Caste. One Raju @ Rajesh sexually assaulted her on
25.07.1996 when she was alone in her father's shop. Case was registered against
Raju @ Rajesh under Sections 450, 376 and 323 of I.P.C. read with Sections
3(2)(v) of S.C. & S.T. ( Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and Sessions Trial
No. 41/1996 commenced against Raju @ Rajesh. After trial Raju @ Rajesh was
acquitted vide judgment dated 21.01.1997 by the learned Sessions Judge, Satna
and he issued notice to the complainant (present appellant) as to why she
should not be punished for giving false evidence. The trial Court proceeded
against the appellant under Section 344 of Cr.P.C. When particulars of offence
was read over to her, in plea she admitted that she lodged a false report and
gave false evidence. On her admission, learned trial Court convicted the
appellant under Section 193 of IPC and sentenced her to undergo 3 months S.I.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant expressly gave up his challenge to
the findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellant is
concerned. In other words, learned counsel for the appellant accepted the
finding of conviction passed against the appellant, however, he submits that
keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the quantum of
sentence be set aside. He further submitted that the appellant is a lady. She was
actually prosecutrix in Sessions Trial No. 41/96 initiated against one Raju @
Rajesh for the offences under Sections 450, 376 and 323 of I.P.C. read with
Sections 3(2)(v) of S.C. & S.T. ( Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. While
acquitting the accused, present appellant was convicted under Section 344 of
Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the appellant has no criminal past. Trial is
being faced by her since the year 1998. He prayed that looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, the appellant be sentenced with fine amount only
instead of jail sentence.
4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has submitted that
the Court below has rightly found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence,
therefore, no grounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the
appellant, hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire
record of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal in part upon finding some
force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
6. Though the appellant has not made any attempt to assail the finding
of their conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether the
findings of the Court below of conviction is legally sustainable or not, I perused
the record and especially therein having so perused, I am satisfied that no case
is made out to interfere in the findings of the Court below on merits, therefore,
this Court uphelds the findings of conviction of appellant as recorded by the
Court below.
7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and
the fact that the appellant is a lady, who has no previous criminal antecedents
and this appeal is of the year 1998 and looking to the facts and circumstances
of the present case, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would
be met if the appellant is sentenced only with fine. Hence, the sentence given by
the trial Court is set aside.
8. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned conviction
is hereby maintained. However, the jail sentence imposed on appellant is set
aside and she is sentenced with fine of Rs.500/-. Appellant is directed to
deposit fine amount of Rs.500/-, if not already deposited, within one month
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In default of payment of
fine amount by appellant within the stipulated period, the appellant shall suffer 1
month R.I. Appellant is on bail. Her personal bond and bail bond stand
discharged.
9. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal appeal stands
partly allowed and disposed of.
10. Let a copy of this order alongwith record be sent to the court below
for information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
V. JUDGE
Vikram
