Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kunwarlal vs The State Of M.P. on 8 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21550
1 CRA-812-2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 812 of 2002
KUNWARLAL
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Ramji Patel - Amicus Curiae.
Shri A.R. Chauhan - Panel lawyer for the State.
HEARD ON:- 24.01.2024 AT JABALPUR SITTING.
POSTED ON:- 08.05.2025 AT INDORE SITTING.
....................................................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the
Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by judgement dated 04.05.2002 passed in Special
Case no.97/2001 passed by Special Judge, SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 Sehore
whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted under Section 354 of
I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and Section 3(1)(XI) of
SC and ST (POA) Act and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation of 1
months simple imprisonment.
2. Facts in brief are that prosecutrix (PW-1) belongs to Pardi case
coming under scheduled tribes whereas appellant-accused does not belong to
SC or ST category. On 06.12.1997 in the evening at 5 pm when the
prosecutrix (PW-1) was going to flour mill and kept weight on head and
accused came behind her and pressed her chest and prosecutrix tried to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21550
2 CRA-812-2002
outrage the modesty of the victim. Victim raised the alarm and her brother-
in-law and sister-in-law came and the accused ran away from the spot. Next
day ie. 07.12.1997, a report was lodged by the victim (PW-1) in Police
Station Aasta after investigation the report under Section 173(2) of the
Cr.P.C. was preferred before the ACGM Aasta and vide order dated
28.03.2001 in RT no.25/2001. Case was committed to Special judge, Sehore
charges under Section 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(XI) of SC and ST (POA)
Act, 1989 framed and appellant-accused abjured guilt.
3. Prosecution examined victim (PW-1), her husband (PW-2), her
brother-in-law (PW-3), Sarpanch village Borekheda Tehsil Ashta District
Sehore Jagannath Singh (PW-4), SDOP Ahsta Jaisingh Kushwaha (PW-5),
Head Constable Rajendra Singh (PW-6). In cross-examination under Section
313 of Cr.P.C., appellant-accused explained the circumstances appearing in
evidence against him that he has some property dispute in family and he has
been falsely implicated due to that enmity.
4. Appreciating the evidence, Trial Court found proved that victim
(PW-1) belong to Pardi caste coming under Scheduled Tribes and appellant
does not belong to SC or ST category Trial Court found corroboration of
PW-1 from the testimony of her brother-in-law and also discarded defence
version on the ground. That no material has been placed to substantiate the
defence and convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused as per para-1 of
the judgment.
5. This appeal has been preferred on the ground that prosecution
witnesses have nothing stated against appellant but learned Trial Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21550
3 CRA-812-2002
wrongly convicted the appellant-accused. Their testimony is not reliable.
Defence of appellant-accused of false implication due to enmity have not
been considered. The contradiction in the testimony of PW-1 and have been
ignored. No independent witness has been examined.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Prosecution has supported the impugned judgment and prayed for
dismissal of appeal.
8. Perused the record.
9. Perusal of the testimony of victim (PW-1), her husband (PW-2), her
brother-in-law (PW-3) transpires that at the time of incident only victim and
victim (PW-1) and her brother-in-law (PW-3) alongwith sister-in-law were
returning from village Borekheda to their huts at about 5 pm. Victim (P.W-1)
stated that there was a gap between her brother-in-law, sister-in-law and
herself because she was bearing child and there was a bucket of flour on her
head. Appellant-accused came behind her and pressed her chest and offered a
note of Rs. 50/-. On raising alarm her brother-in-law and sister-in-law came
and appellant-accused ran away from the spot.
10. The testimony of victim (PW-1) has been challenged on the
ground that Head Constable Rajendra Singh (PW-6) states that the
application Ex.P-1 was presented on 07.12.1997 at P.S. Ashta in which the
date of incident is stated to be 06.12.1997 and the offence has been
registered on 21.12.1997 and victim (PW-1) states that she filed the
application in P.S. Ashta after two days of incident. Trial Court has properly
appreciated the fact and recorded the finding that it does not fall within the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21550
4 CRA-812-2002
category of 'material contradiction'. As per head constable Rajendra Singh
(PW-6), he made an enquiry and thereafter, registered FIR (Ex.P-5).
11. The cross-examination of victim (PW-1) at para-10, there is a
suggestion that appellant-accused and Jagannath has a property dispute and
due to that dispute, this report has been lodged. Victim (PW-1) has denied
the suggestion. The same suggestion has been denied in para-7 by brother-in-
law (PW-1) also. The basis of which defence has not been substantiated.
Accordingly, this defence is not proved even to the accident of
preponderance of probability. Accordingly, on reappreciation of the evidence
of victim (PW-1) and her brother-in-law (PW-3), the finding of Trial Court
that on 06.12.1997 at 5 pm, appellant-accused used the criminal force on
victim (PW-1) a woman to outrage her modesty does not call for
interference.
12. Trial Court has also found that victim (PW-1) belongs to ST
category but the certificate (Ex.P-2) is issued by Jagannath Singh (PW- 4)
who is the Sarpanch village Borekheda. This certificate is not issued by
competent authority. Accordingly, findings of Trial Court that victim (PW-1)
belongs to the ST category is not sustainable.
13. Accordingly, conviction of appellant-accused under Section 354 of
IPC is affirmed but conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 3(1)
(XI) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989 is set aside.
14. Appellant-accused has been sentenced for a period of six months
and a fine of Rs 500/- for both offences under Section 354 of IPC and
Section 3(1)(XI) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989. Acquittal from Section 3(1)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21550
5 CRA-812-2002
(XI) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989 does not affect the sentence under
Section 354 of IPC.
15. It is prayed that appellant-accused has no criminal antecedent and
he may be granted the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act,
1958. In this regard, paras 12, 14 and 20 of Ajahar Ali v. State of W.B.,
(2013) 10 SCC 31 held as under:-
"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
roadside Romeo, we do not think it is a fit case where the benefit of the 1958
Act should be given to the appellant."
16. The provisions of Section 354 IPC have 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.
17. In Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of A.P., 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."
18. Accordingly, appellant-accused cannot be extended benefit of
Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
19. In the light of above discussion, this appeal is allowed to the extent
of setting aside the conviction under Section 3(1)(XI) of SC and ST (POA)
Act, 1989. His conviction under Section 354 of IPC and sentence of R.I for 6
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21550
6 CRA-812-2002
(Six) months and fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) with default
stipulation of one month simple imprisonment is affirmed in this regard.
20. Supersession Warrant be prepared and appellant - Kunwarlal be
sent to custody to undergo remaining jail sentence.
21. Let copy of the judgment be provided to the appellant. The record
of the trial Court be remitted back.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
HK/akanksha
