Vesta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 3041 MP

                                                            1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                       BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                              ON THE 20 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                            CRIMINAL REVISION No. 723 of 2014

                           BETWEEN:-
                           VESTA S/O KHUMSINGH BHILALA, AGED ABOUT 43
                           Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST  R/O
                           VILL.GIRWANIA TEHSIL KUKSHI DISTRICT DHAR
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPLICANT
                           (BY SHRI DHARMENDRA YADAV - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH NOT MENTION
                           THRU.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE  DHAR  (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI KAPIL MAHANT - PANEL LAWYER)

                                 This revision coming on for direction this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                             ORDER

T he applicant has preferred this Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short 'Cr.P.C.') being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.6.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kukshi, Dhar in Criminal Appeal No. 13/2014, whereby the judgment dated 17.12.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kukshi in Criminal Case No. 861/2010 has been maintained and applicant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 354 of IPC and sentenced to one year RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI Signing time: 21-02-2023 10:57:12

and with usual default stimulation.

The prosecution story in brief is that on 20.8.2010 at about 7.30 am while prosecutrix was returning to home from forest to answer the natural call, at that time present applicant came and with an intention to outrage her modesty, caught hold her hand due to which her bangles have broken. The applicant also threatened her that if she discloses the incident to anyone, he will kill her. The prosecutrix returned to her home and narrated the whole incident to her father in law Tirla and her husband Mukamsingh. Thereafter she lodged the FIR. Thereafter MLC of prosecutrix was conducted at CHC Kukshi by Dr. Vishal Shrivastava (PW-1). According to MLC one contusion has been found over the

wrist of prosecutrix. During investigation spot map has been prepared.

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the present applicant before the JMFC, Kukshi, who has framed charged under Sections 354 and 506 of IPC against the applicant. The applicant has abjured his guilt and took a plea that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by both the parties and scrutinizing entire evidence available on record, convicted the present applicant under section 354 of IPC and sentenced to one year RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-

Being aggrieved by the said conviction, the present applicant has preferred a Criminal Appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kukshi. The same was dismissed and order of conviction passed by JMFC has been maintained. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the applicant has preferred this Criminal Revision before this Court.

The applicant has preferred the present Revision on several grounds, but during the course of the argument, learned counsel for the applicant submits Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI Signing time: 21-02-2023 10:57:12

that applicant does not want to press this Criminal Revision on merit and he is not assailing the conviction and sentence part of the judgment. He has confined his argument only to the extent of quantum of sentence and his sole prayer is that the imprisonment of the applicant be reduced to the period already undergone by him, as the applicant has already suffered jail incarceration for more than one month and he is facing trial for last 13 years. Applicant is a 52 years old poor person and is not having any criminal background. Therefore, his jail sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the revision and prays for its rejection by submitting that both the Courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant and the sentence in question is sufficient.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, although the conviction has not been challenged, but a bare perusal of the evidence available on record, also justifies the judgment of conviction passed by both the Courts below.

S o far as the quantum of jail sentence is concerned, the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant appears to be just and proper. The present applicant remained in custody for about one month i.e. from 23.6.2014 to 23.7.2014. At the time of incident present applicant was 43 years of age.

Now he is 52 years of age. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence of applicant to the period already undergone by him.

Considering the aforesaid, the revision is partly allowed by maintaining the conviction of the applicant, but reducing his jail sentence to the period

Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI Signing time: 21-02-2023 10:57:12

already undergone by him. The fine amount imposed upon the applicant by the trial court is hereby affirmed. Applicant is on bail, his surety and bail bonds stands discharged.

The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by the trial Court is also affirmed.

Let a copy of this order alongwith record of the both the Courts below b e sent back to the concerned Courts for information and necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE BDJ

Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI Signing time: 21-02-2023 10:57:12