Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 39 (MP)

Dammu v. State of M. P.

2011-01-10

G.S.SOLANKI

body2011
JUDGMENT : G.S. Solanki,J. The Special Judge, Betul, District Betul (M.P.), has passed the impugned judgment dated 26.11.2010 in Special Case No. 121/09 by which the appellant/accused has been convicted under Sections 451,354 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/-, Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/-,with default stipulation. 2. Being aggrieved the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that on 17.4.2009 at about 12.00 in the day time appellant entered inside the residential house of prosecutrix, for purpose of outraging the modesty of prosecutrix. He used the criminal force against prosecutrix, caught hold her, pressed her breast and laid down her on the ground. On hue and cry made by prosecutrix her son Rajendra and other witnesses Kamlu and Dinesh came over there. Then appellant fled away. 4. Prosecutrix belonging to the Scheduled caste, she lodged the written report(Ex.P-2). Police registered the First Information Report as Ex. P-3. 5. After usual investigation appellant was prosecuted before the Special Judge, Betul. 6. The Special Judge, Betul framed the charges under Sections 452,354,506(Part-II) of I.P.C. and under Section 3 (1) (xi) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 7. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. 8. After trial appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned herein above. Hence, this appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he did not want to challenge the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court but he submitted that appellant is a first offender and he is in custody since 26.11.2010. If his sentence be reduced to the period of jail sentence already undergone and fine of Rs. 500/-, so end of justice would be met out. 10. Learned counsel for the State has no objection in regard to sentence as contended by learned counsel for the appellant. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in which appellant is a first offender, no previous conviction is reported against him. He is in jail since 26.11.2010 i.e. about 11/2 months, in my considered opinion, end of justice would be met out, if appellant be convicted to the sentence already undergone and fine of Rs. 500/- on each count. 12. In these circumstances, appeal is party allowed. He is in jail since 26.11.2010 i.e. about 11/2 months, in my considered opinion, end of justice would be met out, if appellant be convicted to the sentence already undergone and fine of Rs. 500/- on each count. 12. In these circumstances, appeal is party allowed. Conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is affirmed and the sentence awarded against the appellant is altered, for 451 of I.P.C. jail sentence already undergone and fine of Rs. 500/- (already deposited) and for 354 of I.P.C., jail sentence already undergone and fine of Rs. 500/- (already deposited). 13. Copy of this judgment be forwarded immediately to the Special Judge, Betul for compliance and necessary action.