Sameer Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 3747 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sameer Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 2024

                                                           1
                           IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
                                             ON THE 8 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                            CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 745 of 2009

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    SAMEER KHAN S/O JABBAR KHAN, AGED ABOUT
                                28 YEARS, R/O VILL GOHPARU PS JAISINGH
                                NAGAR DISTT SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    GAYADEEN SINGH S/O SHRI SAHDEV SINGH
                                GOND, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
                                SALEBAHRA   P.S.JAISINGH NAGAR   DISTT
                                SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....APPELLANTS
                          (BY SHRI MANISH MUKHRAIYA - ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH P.S.                 AJAKA
                          SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI NARENDRA LODHI - PANEL LAWYER)

                                Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the

                          following:
                                                          JUDGMENT

By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Special Judge, Shahdol in Special Case No.71/2007 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 456 o f Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 1 year RI and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to further undergo one month RI and Section 354 of Indian Penal Code

and sentenced to undergo one year RI and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to

further undergo one month RI.

2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Manish Mukhraiya, Advocate who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist the Court on behalf of the appellants as amicus curiae.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in brief are that on 30.05.2007 at about 7:00 pm. when complainant was alone at her house, then appellants have entered into the house of complainant and used to criminal force to outrage her modesty.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that from the evidence on record, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted, alternatively, he submits that

in fact and circumstances of the case, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. There was no mens ria behind the incident so a liberal view of the point of sentence be taken by the Court, so he prayed that the sentence be reduced to period already undergone.

5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer submitted that the findings of learned trial Court does not call for any interference. Court is at liberty to consider the matter on the point of sentence.

6. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of record, it appears that FIR was lodged at P.S. AJK District Shahdol on 03.06.2007 against the appellants which was registered as Crime No.4/2007 under Sections 456, 354, 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST Act. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed.

7. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by judgment dated 08.04.2009 convicted the appellants under Sections 456 and 354 of IPC and sentenced as stated herein above, however, t h e findings

recorded by the learned trial Judge are based on due appreciation of evidence and do not require any interference. The judgment of conviction under Sections 456 and 354 of IPC is upheld.

8. However, looking to the facts that the incident is of the year 2007 since then the appellants are facing mental agony, the appellants remained in custody for 1 days. Appellant No. 1 was of 28 years of age, appellant No. 2 was of 24 years of age at the time of incident. The prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellants on record and there is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Sections 456 and 354 of Indian Penal Code at that time, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellants to the extent of the period which they have already undergone and accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone (1 days) by them and the sentence of fine amount is maintained. Order of the trial Court regarding disposal of the property is also maintained. The appellants are on bail, their personal bonds and bail bonds be discharged. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed.

9. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE L.R.