Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lal Singh vs State Of M.P. on 7 August, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1 CRR-187-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 187 of 2006
LAL SINGH
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Mr. Anil Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Dinesh Savita - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
ORDER
1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated
31.01.2006 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna (M.P.) in
Cr.A.No.212/2005 affirming the judgment and conviction dated 05.05.2005
passed in Criminal Case No.1330/2003 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Guna whereby, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 456 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs.100/- and under Section 354
of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
months with default stipulation.
2. As per prosecution story, short facts of the case leading to filing of
this criminal revision are that on 13.11.2003, the prosecutrix was cooking
food in her house in the evening, at that time, petitioner-accused came there
2 CRR-187-2006
and pressed her breast with bad intention. Thereafter, prosecutrix screamed
loudly, on which her mother-in-law-Bhagwati Bai and Deewan Singh came,
thereafter the petitioner-accused fled away from the spot of incident.
3. An FIR bearing Crime No.507/2003 was registered against the
appellant for the offence punishable under Section456 and 354 of IPC. On
lodging of F.I.R., criminal law was triggered and set in motion, Investigation
Agency recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses, prepared the spot
map, arrested the accused person and after completion of all due formalities,
the charge-sheet was submitted before the trial Court having criminal
jurisdiction.
4. The learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner for
the offence punishable under Sections 456 and 354 of IPC which was denied
by him. In order to bring home the charges, prosecution has examined as
many as four witnesses (PW-1 to PW-4). The defense of accused is of false
implication and the same defense has been put forth by him in his statement.
The learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and
after appreciating the evidence available on record vide judgment dated
05.05.2005 passed in Criminal Case No.1330/2003 convicted the petitioner
for the offence punishable under Sections 456 and 354 of IPC and sentenced
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03-03 months with fine of
Rs.100/- with default stipulation. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an
appeal bearing Cr.A. No.212/2005 before the learned First Additional
Sessions Judge, Guna (M.P.). The learned appellate Court after hearing
learned counsel for the rival parties vide impugned judgment dated
3 CRR-187-2006
31.01.2006 affirmed the judgment dated 05.05.2005 passed by the trial
Court, against which, the present revision is filed.
5. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner argued that the petitioner
has falsely been implicated in the case. It is further argued that there are
material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses. Further argument is that the petitioner is facing the criminal
proceedings since the year, 2006 to till date and is suffering physically and
mentally for the same and he has already served total incarceration of 65
days out of total awarded maximum sentence of three months. On these
grounds, it is prayed that revision filed by the petitioner deserves to be
allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside.
6. In alternative, leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has already served total incarceration of 65 days out of total
awarded maximum sentence of three months. It is submitted that looking to
the nature of offence and the fact that petitioner has already served
substantive part of jail sentence, the same may be reduced to the period
already undergone and the amount of fine may reasonably be enhanced.
7. Learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State submits that after due
appreciation of evidence, learned Courts below have found the offence
proved against the petitioner, which requires no interference. It is submitted
that the revision filed by the petitioner be dismissed.
8. From perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that no
illegality has been committed by the learned Courts below in convicting the
petitioner hence, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Courts
4 CRR-187-2006
below requires no interference and the same is hereby maintained.
9. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, looking to the limited
prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and the nature of offence and
the fact that petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings since the year, 2006
and has already served substantive period of jail sentence, the purpose would
be served in case the jail sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the
period already undergone.
10. In the result, this criminal revision is partly allowed. The findings
of conviction are hereby maintained with the modification to the extent that
the jail sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already
undergone subject to depositing fine amount as imposed by the Courts
below, failing which, the petitioner shall suffer remaining jail sentence. The
petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.
11. With the aforesaid modification, the instant criminal revision
stands disposed of.
12. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and
necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
(LJ*)
