Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 30 (MP)

Radheshyam v. State of M. P.

2012-01-09

P.K.JAISWAL

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the accused/appellant against the judgment of conviction dated 29.9.2007 passed by the Special Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora) in Special Case No. 40/2007, whereby the appellant is convicted under section 354 of IPC and sentenced to 6 months’ RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in lieu of fine to undergo additional RI for 3 months. He is also convicted under section 506 of IPC and sentenced to 6 months RI with fine of Rs. 500/-; in lieu of fine to undergo additional RI for 2 months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. As per prosecution story, on 27.3.2007 at about 11-11.30 in the morning when complainant Manjubai was collecting wood near the well of the appellant (Radheshyam), the appellant came there and tried to outrage her modesty. The complainant cried for help, but no one was there. Thereafter, the complainant took the sickle in her hand. On seeing this the accused/appellant disassociated her and stated that if she narrate this fact to anyone or lodge report against him, he will kill her. After the incident complainant came to her house and narrated the whole incident to her mother-in-law Nathibai and Peerulal. Her husband was out of village and when he returned, the FIR was lodged at Police Station Pachor vide Ex. P/6. During investigation it was found that the complainant belongs to Balai caste and as per her caste certificate (Ex. P/5) she is member of Scheduled Tribe, case has been registered for an offence punishable under sections 354 and 506 of the IPC and section 3 (1) (xi) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed before the competent Court. The learned special Judge, after completion of trial convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated herein above, hence, this appeal. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is mentally ill and, therefore, he could not mark his presence on 25.4.2011 and prayed to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone on the ground that he is in jail since 16.11.2011 out of total period of 6 months. 4. On 2.11.2011 learned Deputy Government Advocate was directed to see that the accused-appellant shall undergo the test by the Medical Board and he shall file the report. 4. On 2.11.2011 learned Deputy Government Advocate was directed to see that the accused-appellant shall undergo the test by the Medical Board and he shall file the report. Thereafter, on 30.11.2011 this Court directed that the appellant will undergo a test for mental disability. On 2.12.2011 he was admitted in District Hospital, Rajgarh. The expert of the said hospital referred the appellant to Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal, where he was examined by Dr. J.P. Agarwal, Assistant Professor (Psychiatric), Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal. He after examination gave a report that the appellant is suffering from psychosis, which is a serious mental ailment and directed for his regular treatment. As per report of Medical Expert this Court finds that the appellant-accused is suffering from mental disability. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, keeping in view that what has happened seems to be happened on the spur of the moment between the parties, the prayer for the sentence already under gone (i.e., about two months) made by the learned counsel deserves to be allowed. 5. Consequently, this appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant is maintained; however, the sentence of 6 months RI is reduced to the period already undergone subject to payment of Rs. 7,500/- as compensation, which shall be paid to the victim. The appellant is in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.