Shyam Lal Loniya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 22656 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shyam Lal Loniya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 December, 2023

                                                           1
                           IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
                                            ON THE 28 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                           CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1544 of 2006

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SHYAM LAL LONIYA S/O SHRI RAM KRIPAL LONIYA,
                          AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O VILL.BAHERA DABOUR
                          (PIPARAHA TOLA) P.S. MAUGANJ, REWA (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....APPELLANT
                          (NONE FOR THE APPELLANT )

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH POLICE
                          STATION MAUGANJ, DISTRICT     REWA (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI PANKAJ TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER)

                                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 28.07.2006 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Special Case No.03/2006, whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 354 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 incident had occurred on

21.11.2005. Accused and complainant are well known to each other and complainant was working as labourer in the agricultural land of the accused. At around 03:00 P.M. afternoon accused caught hold of the complainant and dragged her to near by field. When she raised alarm accused tried to mask her mouth and touched her inappropriately. Hearing her calls of alarm her husband came running and then the accused/appellant ran away.

3. Initially, the case was registered under Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act also but the trial Court has found the offence under Section 354 of IPC only.

4. This Court has gone through the entire evidence adduced on behalf of

the prosecution. The prosecution has examined PW-2 complainant, PW-3 Chotaku, PW-4 Dashrath, PW-5 Gokul, PW-6 Awadesh 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. Presently the appellant would be around 80 years of age. The incident took place in the year

2005 and accused/appellant has faced trial and this appeal is pending since 2006, 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 (eight 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 (eight 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) V. JUDGE Vin**