[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rameshwar Yadav vs The State Of M.P. on 8 December, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31856
1 WP-1936-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 8 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1936 of 2011
RAMESHWAR YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Rakshit Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri APS Tomar - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
In compliance of issuance of bailable warrant to the petitioner by this
Court vide order dated 16.09.2025, he is present in person.
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
(i). That, present petition may kindly be allowed by
setting -aside the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence awarded by Courts below and he may kindly be
acquitted of the charge leveled against him.
(ii). That, pass any other appropriate order or direction
which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper for the sake of
the petitioner.
Short facts of the case, according to the prosecution, are that on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31856
2 WP-1936-2011
31.12.2009, at about 6:00 PM, the complainant (PW-1) had gone to her field
known as Kharaúa ki Badi Patiya Har, situated at Mouza Devgarh, to collect
fodder. A mustard crop was standing in the field. At that time, the
appellant/accused came there and asked her where her mother was.
Complainant told the accused that her mother was unwell and was at home.
Thereafter, with bad intention, the appellant/accused caught hold of her
hand. When she screamed, her younger brother Sudeep (PW-5) and Smt.
Saroj Yadav (PW-4) reached the spot. Witness Saroj asked who was there,
upon which the appellant/accused left the complainant and ran away. The
complainant then went home and narrated the entire incident to her mother
Phoolkunwar (PW-3), who in turn informed her father Rajendra Singh (PW-
2). Because it had become late in the evening, the report was not lodged on
the same day. The next morning, the complainant went to Police Station
Basai with her father and lodged the report, which was recorded as Exhibit
P-1. On the basis of Exhibit P-1, Police Station Basai registered a case
against the appellant/accused. The Investigating Officer Vinayak Shukla
(PW-6) inspected the spot and prepared the site map Exhibit P-2, recorded
the statements of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC, and on 06.01.2010,
arrested the appellant/accused as per the arrest memo. After completing the
investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the trial court. The petitioner
denied the charges; however, after trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, by judgment dated 02.02.2011, found the petitioner guilty under
Section 374 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to six months of
rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved thereby, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31856
3 WP-1936-2011
petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal before the learned Sessions Judge,
Datia, which was dismissed by judgment dated 16.03.2011, thereby
affirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.
Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ
petition.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
entire record, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the concurrent
findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The evidence has been
duly appreciated, and both Courts have categorically held that the
prosecution has proved the incident. No perversity or infirmity is found in
the conviction. It is noted that the petitioner has already undergone about 10
days of imprisonment.
So far as the sentence of the petitioner is concerned, as he has endured
the ordeal of the criminal case since 2011, this Court is of the view that the
ends of justice would be adequately served by reducing the custodial
sentence to the period already undergone, with a reasonable enhancement of
the fine.
Consequently, the present petition is partly allowed. The impugned
conviction is hereby maintained. However, the jail sentence imposed on the
petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him, and the fine of
Rs.500/- under Section 354 of the IPC is enhanced to Rs.2,500/-, which shall
be deposited by the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. In default of payment of the fine within the
stipulated period, the petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31856
4 WP-1936-2011
month. The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid to the
complainant/State after due verification. The petitioner is on bail, his bail
bond stands discharged. Any amount of fine deposited earlier shall be
adjusted.
With the aforesaid modification, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and
necessary compliance.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
