Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21600
1 CRR-5838-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 11th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5838 of 2024
SUNIL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Lucky Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Joshi - G.A for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This criminal revision under section 438 r/w section 442 of the
BNSS, 2023 is preferred being aggrieved by the judgment dated
16.07.2024 in criminal appeal no.14/2021 by Additional Judge to the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bikangaon, (West Nimar),
Mandleshwar arising out of judgement dated 27.07.2021 in RCT
No.400289/2016 by JMFC, Bikangaon, district Mandleshwar whereby
the revision petitioner has been convicted under sections 354 & 323 of
the IPC and has been sentenced to one year RI with fine of Rs.500/-
with default stipulation of one month RI and sentenced till the rising of
the Court with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation of ten days
imprisonment respectively.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21600
2 CRR-5838-2024
2. Facts in brief are that prosecutrix (PW/1) was sleeping in her
house situated within the jurisdiction of PS Bikangaon, district
Mandleshwarin the intervening night of 24 & 25 April, 2016. At about
1.00 a.m of 25.04.2016 the revision petitioner used criminal force
intending to outrage the modesty of the victim (PW/1) by pressing her
chest. The victim raised an alarm. Her daughter (PW/2) and husband
(PW/3) awoke and the daughter tried to save her mother. The revision
petitioner slapped (PW/2) and threatened by killing her. The First
Information Report was lodged at 13.17 hrs. of 25.04.2016. The crime
no.143/2016 was registered under sections 354, 323 & 506 of the IPC
against the present revision petitioner. Completing investigation, a final
report was submitted before the Court of JMFC, Bikangaon.
3. The revision petitioner was put to trial. He claimed for trial
pleading innocence.
4. To bring home the guilt, prosecution examined the
prosecutrix as PW/1, her daughter as PW/2, husband as PW/3, ASI Ajay
Dube as PW/4 & medical officer Dr.Anuj Jain as PW/5. In examination
under section 313 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 all the facts and circumstances
were either denied or ignorance was expressed. He pleaded false
implication.
5. Appreciating the evidence, trial court convicted and sentenced
the appellant and acquitted the revision petitioner from the charge under
section 506 Part-II of the IPC and convicted and sentenced as mentioned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21600
3 CRR-5838-2024
in para-1 of this order and the appellate Court affirmed the conviction
and sentence.
6. Challenging the conviction as well as sentence, this revision
petition is preferred on the ground that both the courts below failed to
appreciate the fact that the prosecution could not establish their case
required for conviction.
7. Both the courts below committed error in not extending the
benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 despite recording the
finding that the revision petitioner has no criminal antecedents and it
was his first offence.
8. Heard.
9. State has opposed the revision petition.
10. Perused the record.
11. The testimony of PW/1, PW/2 & PW/3 is in consonance.
Dr.Anuj Jain (PW/5) has stated that he found a 4 cm x 4 cm tenderness
on the right side of neck of PW/1. It corroborates the testimony of the
victim (PW/1). Referred cross examination of PW/3 that he was
sleeping inside the house at the time of incident and there was darkness
at the time of incident does not demolish the testimony of PW/1
regarding the identity of the revision petitioner/accused because revision
petitioner/accused was familiar with PW/1 as he belongs to the village
where the parental home of PW/1 is situated. The finding of the trial
court as affirmed by the appellate court regarding use of criminal force
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21600
4 CRR-5838-2024
towards PW/1 is not perverse and pressing the chest exhibits the
intention to outrage the modesty of PW/1. The finding regarding slap of
PW/2 is also based on evidence. Accordingly, the conviction of the
revision petitioner does not require interference.
12. Now this Court is considering the submissions regarding
non extension of benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. In the
case of Ajahar Ali vs State Of West Bengal - (2013) 10 SCC 31, it is
held that Courts cannot take lenient view in awarding sentence on the
ground of sympathy or delay as the same cannot be any ground for
reduction of sentence. Relevant para-12, 14 & 20 are being referred as
below:
12. In the instant case, as the appellant has committed a
heinous crime and with the social condition prevailing in the
society, the modesty of a woman has to be strongly guarded
and as the appellant behaved like a road side Romeo, we do
not think it is a fit case where the benefit of the Act 1958
should be given to the appellant.
14. The provisions of Section 354 IPC has been
enacted to safeguard public morality and decent behaviour.
Therefore, if any person uses criminal force upon any woman
with the intention or knowledge that the woman's modesty
will be outraged, he is to be punished.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21600
5 CRR-5838-2024
20. In Sadhupati Nageshwara Rao v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, AIR 2012 SC 3242, this Court observed that the
courts cannot take lenient view in awarding sentence on the
ground of sympathy or delay as the same cannot be any
ground for reduction of sentence.
13. The revision petitioner has been awarded minimum
sentence. In the light of above, the sentence also does not require
interference. Accordingly, this criminal revision does not succeed and is
hereby dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
hk/
