Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kailash @ Papuu vs State Of M.P on 20 August, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18362
1 CRR-85-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 20th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 85 of 2013
KAILASH @ PAPUU
Versus
STATE OF M.P
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Chauhan - Advocate for the petitioner from Legal Aid.
Shri Avinash Kulshrestha - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Today nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. This criminal
revision is pending since 2013, therefore, in the interest of justice, Shri
Prashant Chauhan, Advocate, who is present in the Court and his name is in
the panel of Legal Aid Committee, Gwalior, is appointed as counsel for the
petitioner.
2. With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally at the
motion hearing stage itself.
3. The petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision under Section
397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short
'Cr.P.C.'), being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 29.1.2013 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge,
Vidisha in Criminal Appeal No.146/2012, whereby the judgment dated
19.7.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurwai, District Vidisha
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18362
2 CRR-85-2013
in Criminal Case No.321/2011 has been affirmed, whereby petitioner has
been convicted for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to
suffer six months RI with fine of Rs.500/- with usual default stipulation.
4. Prosecution story in brief is that on 12.9.2011 at about 10:00 PM
when complainant (PW-1) was returning to her home it is alleged that
petitioner caught hold her and in order to outrage her modesty pressed her
breast and gagged her mouth. Somehow the prosecutix got herself freed from
the petitioner and cried then her husband Devisingh, other witnesses
Omprakash and Gyan Singh reached on the spot, petitioner/accused fled
away from the spot. Prosecutrix lodged an FIR at Police Station Kurwai,
District Vidisha. Accordingly, offence has been registered.
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurwai, District Vidisha, who has
framed the charge under Section 354 of IPC. Petitioner/accused abjured his
guilt and pleaded complete innocence.
6. Prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses while
defence did not examine any witness.
7. The trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by both
the parties and scrutinizing entire evidence available on record, convicted
and sentenced petitioner for the offence mentioned herein-above.
8. Being aggrieved by the said conviction, the petitioner has preferred
a Criminal Appeal before the First Appellate Court, but the same was
dismissed by affirming the judgment and sentenced by the trial Court. Being
aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18362
3 CRR-85-2013
below, petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision before this Court.
9. The petitioner has preferred present Revision on several grounds,
but during the course of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner does not want to press this Criminal Revision on merit
and is not assailing the conviction and sentence part of the judgment. He has
confined his argument only to the extent of quantum of the sentence and his
sole prayer is that the imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to the period
already undergone by him, as the petitioner is facing trial for last 14 years.
Petitioner has no criminal past, therefore, his jail sentence be reduced to the
period already undergone.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the
revision and prays for its rejection by submitting that both the Courts below
have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner and the sentence in
question is sufficient.
11. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
12. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, although the conviction has not been challenged, but a bare
perusal of the evidence available on record, also justifies the judgment of
conviction passed by both the Courts below.
13. So far as the quantum of jail sentence is concerned, the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be just and
proper. Petitioner has suffered jail incarceration from 29.1.2013 to
13.2.2013. At the time of incident petitioner was man of 36 years of age and
now turn more than 50 years of age. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18362
4 CRR-85-2013
would be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence to the period already
undergone by the petitioner.
14. Considering the aforesaid, the revision is partly allowed by
maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, but reducing his jail sentence to
the period already undergone by him. The fine amount imposed upon the
petitioner by both the Courts below is hereby affirmed. Petitioner is on bail,
his surety and bail bond stands discharged.
15. The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by the
trial Court is also affirmed.
16. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Legal Aid
Committee, Gwalior to pass formal order regarding appointment and
payment of counsel fee to the concerned Advocate through Legal Aid in
accordance with rules.
17. Let a copy of this order alongwith record of both the Courts below
be sent back to the concerned Courts for information and necessary
compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
(alok)
