Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mallu @ Harichand vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 15 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1074 of 2009
BETWEEN:-
MALLU @ HARICHAND S/O BABULAL PAWAR, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O VILL. BINDARAI SATOTI, P.S.
SAONWRI, P.S. LAWAGHOGHRI DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS. SEEMA SAHU - ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH TH.P.S.
LAWAGHOGHRI DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (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 appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by Special Judge (Atrocities) Chhindwara in Special Case No.
7/08 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 354 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo 6 months RI and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to
further undergo 2 months RI and Section 451 of IPC and sentenced to undergo
6 months RI and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to further undergo 1 month
RI.
2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellant, Ms. Seema Sahu, Advocate
who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist the Court on behalf of
the appellant as amicus curiae.
3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in brief are that on
19.12.2007 at about 4:30 when prosecutrix was alone at her home, then
appellant came there and used criminal force with intention to outrage her
modesty.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from the evidence on
record, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted, alternatively, he submits that in
the 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 she 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. Lawaghoghri District
Chhindwara on 20.12.2007 against the appellant which was registered as Crime
No.126/2007 under Sections 451 and 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(11) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After investigation, the charge sheet was
filed.
7. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by
judgment dated 28.04.2009 convicted the appellant under Sections 354 and 451
of of IPC and sentenced as stated herein above, however, the 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 354
and 451 of IPC is upheld.
8. However, looking to the facts that the incident is of the year 2007 since
then the appellant is facing mental agony, appellant remained in custody for 4
days. Appellant was of 38 years of age at the time of incident. The appellant
did not misuse the liberty granted to him under the bail. The prosecution has not
brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellant on record and there is no
minimum sentence has been prescribed under Sections 354 and 451 of I.P.C. at
that time, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellant to the
extent of the period which he has already undergone and accordingly, the jail
sentence is reduced to the period already undergone (4 days) by him and the
sentence of fine amount is maintained. The appellant is on bail, his personal
bond and bail bond 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)
L.R.
