Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 22 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1992 of 2006
BETWEEN:-
DINESH S/O BHAIYYALAL SONI, AGED ABOUT 20
YE A R S , R/O VILL. DEEP GAON KALA P.S.SIRALI
DISTT.HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SEEMA SAHU - AMICUS CURIAE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
(BY SHRI VIJAY PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGEMENT
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 dated 10/10/2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Harda in S.T.
No.164/2005 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 354 and
323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- and
1 month RI and fine of Rs.500/- in default, to further undergo 15 days RI and
15 days RI.
2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellant, Smt. 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
15/1/2004 when prosecutrix had gone for cutting wood, appellant came there
and used criminal force with intention to outrage her modesty and also assaulted
her on her thigh and back. On the report of complainant, FIR was registered
and the matter was investigated. After completion of investigation, charge sheet
was filed and upon conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty and
sentenced as detailed above.
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 rea 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. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by
judgment dated 10/10/2006 convicted the appellant under Sections 354 and 323
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
323 of IPC is upheld.
7. However, looking to the facts that the incident is of the year 2004 since
then the appellant is facing mental agony, appellant remained in custody for 4
days. Appellant was of 20 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 323 o f 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 while maintaining the
sentence of fine intact.
8. Accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone
(4 days) by him and the sentence of fine amount is maintained. Order of the trial
Court regarding disposal of the property is also maintained.
9. The appellant is on bail, his personal bond and bail bond be discharged.
Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed.
10. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
m/-
