Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suleman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 February, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 507 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
JUDGEMENT DATED 15th FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 507 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
SULEMAN S/O SHRI JUMMAN @ LUKMAN MUSALMAN
OCCUPATION: NA VARVATPURA , ARON, DIST. GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
( SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV, ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE
APPELLANT ON BEHALF OF LEGAL AID SERVICES AUTHORITY)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH INCHARGE POLICE
STATION ARON, DIST. GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
( SHRI PRABHAT PATERIYA - P.P.- APPEARING ON BEHALF OF
ADVOCATE GENERAL).
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:-
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under section 374 (2)
of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 assailing the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 20/03/2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge,
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for
brevity, "Act of 1989"), District Guna in Special Case No. 56/2009, by which, the
appellant /accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under section
354, 323 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo maximum rigorous imprisonment
for Three months with maximum fine of Rs. 200/- with default stipulation.
2. As per prosecution story, short facts of the case giving rise to filing of this
criminal appeal are that on 24/07/2009 at about 4 'O' clock when the prosecutrix
after taking lunch box alongwith her was going to the field and opposite to the
house at Barwatpura, Aron, she met with an appellant, who with bad intention
caught hold her hand and pressed her breast and thereafter the prosecutrix pushed
him away forcefully and screamed loudly, at that time, her father-in-law, who was
coming from the field stated what happenned, due to which, the appellant
assaulted him by means of Danda, on which, he sustained injuries. Thereafter, the
prosecutrix mother-in-law came at the spot, who was narrated the entire incident
by the prosecutrix. On the basis of aforesaid, FIR bearing crime No. 236/2009
was registered at police station Aron, District Guna for the offence punishable
under section 354 of IPC and section 3(1) (10) of Act of 1989 and after conclusion
of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the competent court having
criminal jurisdiction.
3. Learned trial Court after conclusion of trial, convicted the accused /
appellant for the offence punishable under section 354, 323 of IPC and sentenced
him to undergo maximum rigorous imprisonment for Three months with
maximum fine of Rs. 200/- with default stipulation and acquitted him from the
offence punishable under section 3(1) (11) of Act of 1989. Being aggrieved by
the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 20/03/2014
passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Act of 1989), District Guna
in S.S.T.. No. 56/2009, the accused / appellant has filed the instant criminal
appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the accused / appellant argued that the appellant has
falsely been implicated in the case. It is further argued that there are omissions
and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is further
submitted that prosecution has not examined any independent witness, but only
interested witnesses have been examined. It is further argued that the appellant
aged about 45 years is facing the criminal proceedings from the date of incident
i.e. 24/07/2009 to till date and is suffering physically and mentally for the same
and has already served total imprisonment of Nineteen days out of total awarded
sentence of Three months. It is further argued that injury caused to the victim can
be self inflicted or the same can be caused due to falling down on the ground, but
the learned trial Court has ignored this important aspect of the matter and has
convicted the appellant vide impugned jugment. On these grounds, it is prayed that
the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed and the judgment of
conviction deserves to be set aside.
5. In alternative leaned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was in
jail for some time during trial and the jail sentence was suspended by the sessions
court and again the jail sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated
15/04/2014. It is submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the fact that
appellant 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.
6. Learned counsel for respondent / State submits that after due appreciation of
evidence, learned Court below has found the offence proved against the appellant,
which requires no interference. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the
appellant be dismissed.
7. From perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that no illegality has
been committed by the learned Court below in convicting the appellant, hence the
judgment of conviction passed by the learned Court below requires no interference
and is hereby maintained.
8. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, looking to the limited prayer
made by the counsel for the appellant and the nature of offence and the fact that
appellant who is aged about 45 years is facing the criminal proceedings since 2009
and has already served substantive period of jail sentence the purpose would be
served in case the jail sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period
already undergone. However, the amount of fine is hereby enhanced upto Rs.
2,000/-.
9. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The findings of conviction are
hereby maintained with the modification to the extent that the jail sentence
awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone subject to
depositing additional fine amount of Rs. 2,000/- which shall be payable to the
prosecutrix within a period of two months, failing which the appellant shall suffer
jail sentence awarded by the learned Court below. Appellant is in jail. He be set
free forthwith, if not required in any other case.
10. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed of.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
Durgekar*
