Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1304 (MP)

Mangal v. State of M. P.

2009-11-24

SUSHMA SHRIVASTAVA

body2009
JUDGMENT : Smt . Sushina Shrivastava ,J.: -- Applicanthas preferred this revision against the appellate judgment dated 20.1.99 passedby Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara , District Narsinghpur in CriminalAppeal No. 1/96 affirming the conviction of the applicant and sentence passedon him under Section 354 of IPC by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadarwara in Criminal Case No. 1134/92. 2.Applicant was tried for the offence under Section 354 of IPC before AdditionalChief Judicial Magistrate, Gadarwara . As perprosecution allegations, on 3.11.89 when prosecutrix was collecting the logs in the forest, applicant came to her, caught hold ofher hand and with intent to outrage her modesty began pressing her breast. Onher shouting for help, the mother of the prosecutrix came there, then applicant fled away. The blouse ofthe prosecutrix was torn and her bangles were brokenin the incident. The FIR of the incident was lodged at Police Station Gotitoriya , Narsinghpur by the prosecutrix . On the basis of her report, an offence wasregistered against the applicant and was investigated. After due investigation,applicant was prosecuted under Section 354 of IPC. 3.After trial, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadarwara ,found the applicant guilty for committing the offence under Section 354 of IPCand sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine ofRs.500/-, in default further imprisonment for one month, vide judgment dated14.12.95 passed in Criminal Case No. 1134/92. In Criminal Appeal preferred bythe applicant against the aforesaid order of his conviction and sentence passedby Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadarwara ,the appellate court, after considering the evidence on record, affirmed theconviction and sentence passed on the applicant and dismissed his appeal by theimpugned judgment, which has been challenged in this revision. 4.Revision is preferred inter alia on the ground thatthe courts below erred in convicting the applicant, though number of theprosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case, and erroneouslyheld him guilty; the sentence imposed on him was also too severe and uncalledfor. 5.Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported theimpugned judgment and finding recorded by the courts below. 6.Impugned judgment and records of the lower courts perused. 7.There is a concurrent finding of fact of two courts below that the applicantused criminal force on the prosecutrix with intent tooutrage her modesty. The aforesaid finding of fact does not suffer frominfirmity in view of the evidence of the prosecutrix (P.W-2), which virtually remained unrebutted . 6.Impugned judgment and records of the lower courts perused. 7.There is a concurrent finding of fact of two courts below that the applicantused criminal force on the prosecutrix with intent tooutrage her modesty. The aforesaid finding of fact does not suffer frominfirmity in view of the evidence of the prosecutrix (P.W-2), which virtually remained unrebutted . The FIRof the incident was also promptly lodged on the same day. The mere fact thatsome of the witnesses, namely, Ramvati Bai (P.W-1) and Meera Bai (P.W-3) etc. did not support the prosecution case,could not be a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix (P.W-2). Thus, the finding of guilt recorded by the two courts below againstthe applicant under Section 354 of IPC does not suffer from any legal orfactual infirmity so as to warrant any interference in revision. 8.As regards the sentence, the record reveals that the incident of the caseoccurred in the year 1989 and the applicant has already suffered imprisonmentnearly for two months. In view of these facts, interest of justice would be subserved if the impugned sentence of imprisonment awarded to the applicant ismodified and reduced to the period already undergone by him with someadditional fine. 9.Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant under Section 354 of IPC is maintained.However, impugned sentence of imprisonment awarded to the applicant underSection 354 of IPC is modified and reduced to the period already undergone byhim with an additional fine of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) to be paidby him within two months from today, failing which he shall suffer simpleimprisonment for two months. 10.Revision stands allowed to the extent indicated above.