Jagdish Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1544 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           AT JABALPUR
                                 BEFORE
          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
                ON THE 27th OF JANUARY, 2023
                        CRR NO.4681 OF 2022

        BETWEEN:-

        JAGDISH RAJPUT S/O SHRI SEVALAL
        RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
        OCCUPATION: LABOUR MOTE KA
        PURVA VILLAGE RANGOULI P.S.
        MATGAWAN DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
        (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                  .....PETITIONER

(BY SHRI RAJENDRA YADAV- ADVOCATE)

                                     AND

1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
        THROUGH P.S. MATGAWAN DISTRICT
        CHHATARPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      DISTRICT MAGISTRATE , CHHATARPUR
        DISTRICT   CHHATARPUR    (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

                                                               .....RESPONDENTS

(BY    SHRI      VIVEK       LAKHERA          -   GOVERNMENT             ADVOCATE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    -   2 -



      This petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court passed
the following:

                                 ORDER

Revisional powers of this Court u/S.397/401 of Cr.P.C. are invoked to assail legality and validity of judgment of conviction dated 29.11.2022 passed in Cr.A. No.28/2021 by III Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, whereby petitioner has been convicted u/Ss.354 and 323 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.1000/- and R.I. for three months with fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulations.

2. Instead of hearing on the question of suspension of sentence, this Court deems it appropriate to hear the revision finally since the same revolves around limited facts and grounds raised by learned counsel for petitioner.

3. The incident which gave rise to the present criminal revision took place on 08.08.2021. At about 7:00 pm in weekly market, the prosecutirx (PW-1) was selling fish and petitioner came as customer and asked for price of fish, to which prosecutrix responded that she has sold fish at Rs.120/- per kg during day time, but since it is time to close down shop, she is ready to sell it at Rs.100/- kg. Thereafter, petitioner was said to have caught hold hand of prosecutrix with bad intention and pushed her on the ground. He assaulted the prosecutrix and uttered abusive words. When Phool Singh (PW-2) and Pintu Raja Singh (PW-3)

- 3 -

intervened, petitioner ran away from the spot by threatening the prosecutrix of dire consequences.

4. The Police registered offence punishable u/Ss.354, 323 and 506 of IPC vide Crime No.72/2016. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Prosecutrix was examined as PW-1, who more or less supported the story of prosecution. Deposition of prosecutrix was supported by eye- witness Phool Singh (PW-2). Other eye-witness Pintu Raja Singh (PW-

3) did not support the prosecution story and was also declared hostile by the prosecution. Investigating officer, Smt. Saroj Gahlot (PW-4) also deposed that statements which were recorded by her u/Ss.161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. were as per utterances of respective witnesses. Dr. Amit Agrawal, who had prepared MLC was examined as PW-5, had stated that on physical examination, he found that there was swelling below the left eye of prosecutrix and there were several bruises on the chest of prosecutrix. In cross-examination, Doctor deposed that possibility of falling down of prosecutrix on the ground cannot be ruled out.

4.1 Statement of petitioner/accused u/S.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he flatly denying allegation levelled against him has stated that he has been falsely implicated due to old animosity.

4.2 While alleging old animosity against the prosecutrix, no details have been given, therefore, the said statement has rightly not been relied upon by the trial Court.

- 4 -

4.3 One defence witness namely Santosh Singh Lodhi was also examined who flatly denied the incident to have taken place.

5. After marshaling the evidence, learned trial Judge has written findings of guilty against petitioner/accused by finding that there are slight contradictions and omissions in the deposition of prosecutrix and supporting witness Phool Sing (PW-2), but the same are not substantial enough to discredit the evidenciary value of statements of prosecutrix and eye-witnesses.

6. After having gone through the findings rendered, evidence and material available on record and after considering arguments of learned counsel for rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality, impropriety or rampant irregularity can be noticed in the judgment of the Trial Court or the Appellate Court.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner has sought to take assistance of law of probation u/S.360 of Cr.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

8. Learned counsel for State has revealed that petitioner has criminal antecedents comprising of seven offences in the last about 15 years including one of similar nature of outraging the modesty of woman. More so, the offence which is found to be proved, involves moral turpitude where petitioner has outraged the modesty of a woman, and therefore, in these exceptional facts and circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

- 5 -

[Please see: Azhar Ali Vs. State of West Bengal, (2013) 10 SCC 31 (Para 12) and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Dharam Pal, (2004) 9 SCC 681].

9. Accordingly, this Court declines interference and dismisses the present revision.

10. Consequently, present revision petition stands dismissed sans cost.

(SHEEL NAGU) JUDGE

Sateesh

SATEESH KUMAR SEN 2023.02.01 17:39:57 +05'30'