Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ishwar Singh vs The State Of M.P. Through P.S.R.J.A.J. ... on 7 February, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 430 of 2006
BETWEEN:-
ISHWAR SINGH S/O BANE SINGH RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT
37 YEARS, VILLAGE SIYADA TEHSIL SANVER, DISTRICT
INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI MANOJ SONI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S.R.J.A.J. K. SANVER,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
( BY SHRI MAYANK MISHRA - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure against the judgment dated 31.03.2006 passed by Special Judge
(Prevention of Atrocities Act), Indore in Special Case No.07/2005, whereby
trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced him to undergo one year
R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulaton.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that the husband of the prosecutrix Amrita Bai,
Girdhari was employee of appellant and there was dispute between them
regarding money. On 15.11.2004 at 6 a.m. when prosecutrix Amrita Bai went to
fill drinking water from the hand pump situated in front of the house of the
accused, it is alleged that the accused attempted to outrage her modesty and
used criminal force and abused her. After trial, appellant was found guilty and
he was convicted and sentenced as indicated herein above.
4. Appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by impugned judgment and
submitted that trial Court erred in law and fact in convicting the appellant under
above section when there is no evidence available on record to prove the
offence. He has further submitted that there are so many contradictions and
omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, therefore, their evidence
should not be believed. So on all these grounds, they prayed that the conviction
and sentence passed against the appellant be set aside and he be acquitted from
the charges.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and
prayed for rejection of the appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Now question arises whether the trial Court has committed error in
convicting the appellant?
8. After considering the statements of prosecution witnesses, it is found that
they are intact in their cross-examination and there is no reason to disbelieve
their evidence so in the considered opinion of this Court, trial court has not
committed any error in holding the appellant guilty under Section 3(1)(11) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act therefore, his conviction under Section
3(1)(11) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is upheld.
9. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not
challenging the conviction under Section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 however, prays for grant of benefit of probation to the
appellant.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
record, it is found that the incident took place on 15.11.2004 and at that time the
appellant was 37 years old and now he is near about 57 years old. Record of
the trial Court does not show that he was earlier convicted in any case,
therefore, it means that appellant is a first offender. He was regularly appearing
before the concerned Court on the dates so fixed for his appearance.
Therefore, at this juncture after 20 years if he is sent to jail then enmity between
the parties will further increase and the appellant may become hardcore
criminals in the company of hardened criminals in jail.
11. In the case of Ved Prakash Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1981 SC 643,
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that sentencing an accused person is a sensitive
exercise of discretion and not routine or mechanical prescription acting as
hunch.
12. Considering all the above facts in the considered opinion of this Court it
is the first offence of the accused and he was the sole earning member of the
family, therefore, giving the benefit under Section 4(1) of the Probation of
Offender Act, 1958 he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal
bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety with condition that he keeps peace and
good behaviour for three years from the date of judgment passed by this Court.
If he violates the conditions of bond, he shall be liable to undergo the sentence
imposed by the trial Court. Personal bond and surety be furnished within 2
months from the judgment passed by this Court. His bail bonds shall stand
discharged.
13. Accordingly, appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for information.
C.C. as per rules.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
RJ
