Ganesh Pawar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 22675 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ganesh Pawar 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 BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                               ON THE 28 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                              CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 784 of 2008

                           BETWEEN:-
                           GANESH PAWAR S/O SHOBHARAM PAWAR, AGED
                           ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O VILL. RANIKUTHAR, P.S.
                           LALBARRA, DISTT. BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI A. TAMRAKAR - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                           P.S.LALBARRA (AJAK) BALAGHAT, DISTT. BALAGHAT
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....RESPONDENT/STATE
                           (BY MS. SEEMA TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER)

                                 Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                           following:
                                                           JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as "the Code") assails the judgment dated 25/3/2008 passed in Special Case No.2/2008 decided by learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Balaghat, whereby appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation.

2. The incident relating to the molestation of the complainant was reported to

the Police Station Lalbarra, Distt. Balaghat which was registered on Crime

No.169/2007 for the offence under Sections 354 and 294 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(11) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Investigation was set in motion and on completion, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Magistrate of competent jurisdiction.

3. Learned trial Court after completion of trial duly appreciated the evidence on record and vide impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced to the appellant as mentioned hereinabove.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial Court has ignored the material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore findings of conviction recorded against the

appellant is not sustainable and appellant deserves acquittal. Alternative limb of the argument is that incidence occurred 16 years back. Appellant has no criminal past. He was in custody from 17/11/2007 to 21/11/2007 i.e. 5 days. In view of this, a lenient view may be taken as regards to the sentence and the same may be reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount.

5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer opposed the prayer and submits that the impugned judgment is based on due appreciation of the evidence and needs no interference.

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 u/s. 354 of the IPC is found to be clear, cogent and consistent. The same is free from any material infirmity and anomaly. The testimony of complainant PW/5 is supported with first information report (Ex.P/6). Keeping in view, the evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the learned trial

Court has committed any error in recording conviction for offence u/s. 354 of the IPC. Therefore, the conviction as recorded by the learned trial Court is hereby affirmed.

8. As regards the sentence, the prayer made on behalf of the appellant appears to be reasonable. The incident took place near about 16 years back. Appellant has no criminal past. He has remained in custody for 5 days. In such circumstances, the period of sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone. The Fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.5000/-. Appellant will have to deposit the remaining enhanced amount of fine within a period of 60 days from the date of judgment passed by this Court, before the concerned trial Court failing which the appellant will have to undergo RI for three months.

9. Accordingly, affirming the conviction of the appellant, this appeal is partly allowed o n the point of sentence as mentioned hereinabove. The appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds and personal bonds are discharged.

10. Let the original record of the learned trial Court along with the copy of the judgment be forthwith sent back to the concerned trial Court for compliance and necessary action.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) V. JUDGE m/-