Ballu Pal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16452 MP

                                   1
 IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT JABALPUR
                          BEFORE
           HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
                    ON THE 6 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2274 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
BALLU PAL S/O SHRI HANUMAN PAL, AGED ABOUT 53
Y E A R S , R/O GRAM KHADDI POLICE STATION
GOURIHAR       DISTRICT CHHATARPUR   (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                              .....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI VIJAY SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)

AND
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION  GOURIHAR DISTRICT CHHATARPPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                            .....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI P. CHATTERJEE - PANEL LAWYER)

      Heard on       : 3.10.2023
      Pronounced on: 6.10.2023
      ______________________________________________

      This revision having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
                                   ORDER

I n this criminal revision, the applicant has challenged the impugned judgment dated 18.5.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.229/2017 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Luvkushnagar, district Chhatarpur, whereby the learned appellate court allowed the criminal appeal partially and upheld the conviction of applicant under Sections 456 and 354 of IPC and reduced his jail

sentence from two years to one year rigorous imprisonment and enhanced the fine of Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- on each count and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that in the night of 3.6.2016 the prosecutrix along with her young children was sleeping on the roof of her house and the applicant, who was her neighbour, reached to the roof of her house and by using criminal force tried to outrage her modesty. Upon her screaming, the applicant ran away and Chotelal and Ramvishal arrived there. The husband of prosecutrix was not in the house that night. As the prosecutrix was frightened, she spent that night in the house of Ramvishal and reported the

matter to the police on the next day. After registering the FIR, the matter was investigated and the charge-sheet was filed. Upon conclusion of trial, Judicial Magistrate First Class, district Chhatarpur, convicted and sentenced the applicant in RCT No.389/2016 under Sections 456 and 354 of IPC by his judgment dated 20.6.2017. By the impugned judgment, the appeal was partially allowed on the count of sentence as discussed herein above.

3 . The grounds raised in this criminal revision are that the impugned judgment of appellate court suffers from illegality, perversity and is contrary to the evidence available on record. The independent witnesses failed to support the prosecution case and it was apparent on the face of record that the applicant was falsely implicated in the case. Therefore, it was requested that the judgment of conviction and sentence be set aside and the applicant be acquitted of all the charges.

4 . During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he is challenging the impugned judgment only on the point of sentence and not on the finding of conviction. He also requested to reduce the

sentence of applicant to the period already undergone by him.

5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this criminal revision on the ground that neither the finding of conviction nor the sentence awarded to the applicant by the appellate court deserves any interference. He has, therefore, requested for the dismissal of this revision.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and records of both the courts below.

7. In the light of submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, the finding of conviction given against the applicant is not under challenge before this court but it is legally obligatory upon this court to examine whether that finding is sustainable or not in the eyes of law. For this, the evidence of prosecution is gone through. Interestingly, no oral or written evidence was put forth by the defence side.

8 . The case of prosecution is primarily based upon the testimony of prosecutrix (P.W.3) who was stable in her statements regarding the criminal act of applicant. She was given a suggestion that the applicant was on inimical terms with the father-in-law of prosecutrix, which she has denied but even if this argument is accepted, it cannot be considered as a reason for false implication of applicant. The prosecutrix has disclosed in her examination-in-chief that her father-in-law lives nearby and in the night of incident, he came to her house and

soon left that place. It has also been mentioned in the written complaint (Ex.P3) that on the night of incident the prosecutrix went to the house of her neighbour Ramvishal and spent the night there. This clearly shows that the prosecutrix was not having a deep bonding with her father-in-law, otherwise she would not have taken a decision to spend the night in the house of her neighbour. Thus, the plea

of false implication for the reason of inimical ties between the applicant and the father-in-law of prosecutrix has no substance. Further, neither the reason of enmity has been disclosed by the defence nor the gravity of this enmity has been highlighted.

9 . It has been mentioned in the revision petition that independent witnesses, namely Chotelal (P.W.1) and Ramvishal (P.W.5) had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version but there appears no reason to disbelieve the testimony of prosecutrix, hence, corroboration from independent source was not warranted in this case. The statements of prosecutrix reveal that there were no contradictions or omissions in her court testimony either with her previous statements or in context of the FIR lodged by her. Lalji (P.W.2) is the father-in-law of prosecutrix and Rajwa Pal (P.W.4) is the relative of prosecutrix who have disclosed in their testimonies that the incident was narrated to them by the prosecutrix and no improvement or contradictions could be highlighted in their testimonies which would have challenged the narration of incident as has been given by the prosecutrix.

10. Considering the above discussions, the conviction of applicant by both the courts below for the offences of Sections 456 and 354 of IPC is found to be based on the convincing evidence available on record. Hence, the conviction of applicant for the aforesaid offences is upheld.

11. The emphasis of learned counsel for the applicant was upon the quantum of jail sentence. Neither of the offences proved against the applicant has minimum prescribed punishment. The applicant was sentenced by the trial court to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- under each of the offences and this punishment was modified by the appellate court to one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/- under each offence. The

applicant has suffered a period of jail sentence of more than four and a half months. Taking into consideration, the nature of crime and also the age of applicant, which is presently around 53 years, it would be appropriate to reduce his jail sentence to the period already undergone and enhancing the fine amount to Rs.5,000/- under each count of conviction.

12. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed only on the point of sentence. Thus, affirming the conviction of applicant for the offences of Sections 456 and 354 of IPC he is sentenced for each of these offences to a jail term already undergone with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. This fine amount shall be deposited by the applicant within fifteen days from the date of this order and the amount already paid by him before the courts below shall be adjusted against this enhanced amount of fine. In case, the applicant fails to make payment within the aforesaid time period, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for each default. On payment of fine amount, Rs.10,000/- be paid to the prosecutrix by way of compensation.

13. The applicant is in custody. He be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

A copy of this order be send to the courts below for information and necessary compliance.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE ps

Digitally signed by PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2023.10.07 14:29:15 +05'30' Adobe Reader version: 11.0.8