Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1380 (MP)

Rajju Singh v. State of M. P.

2013-11-13

G.S.SOLANKI

body2013
JUDGMENT : G.S. Solanki, J. 1. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This revision has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by judgment dated 17.10.2013 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa, East Niwar in Criminal Appeal No. 198/2013 affirming the conviction and sentence recorded by JMFC, Khandwa vide judgment dated 15.7.2013 passed in Criminal Case No. 3172/2012 whereby the applicant has been convicted under Sections 354, 452 of the IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- on both counts, with default stipulation. 2. The facts, in short, giving rise to this revision are that as per prosecution on 9.10.2012, the applicant entered into the house of prosecutrix and caught hold her hands with intention to outrage her modesty. The report was lodged at P.S. Pandhana, District Khandwa. After due investigation the applicant was arrested and charge sheeted before JMFC, Khandwa. 3. On appraisal of evidence on record, learned JMFC, Khandwa recorded the conviction of the applicant under Sections 354, 452 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- on both counts, with default stipulation. Being aggrieved thereby the applicant preferred a criminal appeal before First Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa which was dismissed, hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Courts below have committed illegality in appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in recording the conviction of the applicant under Section 354, 452 of the IPC, therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below against the applicant be set aside and applicants be discharged. Learned counsel for the applicant has alternatively submitted that the applicant and the prosecutrix have entered into a compromise, therefore, in view of the compromise, the jail sentence of the applicant may be reduced with fine. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has supported the judgments passed by the Courts below and prayed for dismissal of this revision. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the judgment passed by the appellate Court. There is sufficient evidence on record to hold that the applicant applied criminal force on the prosecutrix in order to outrage her modesty, therefore, there is prima facie case against the applicant under Section 354 of the IPC. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the judgment passed by the appellate Court. There is sufficient evidence on record to hold that the applicant applied criminal force on the prosecutrix in order to outrage her modesty, therefore, there is prima facie case against the applicant under Section 354 of the IPC. It has also come on record that the applicant entered into the house of the prosecutrix, however, he was not having any deadly weapon at the time of entering into the house of prosecutrix, therefore, in my opinion, the trial Court has committed illegality in recording the conviction of the applicant under Section 452 of the IPC. In my opinion, the case of the applicant would fall under Section 451 of the IPC. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has alternatively submitted that the applicant and the prosecutrix have entered into a compromise. In the light of the compromise entered into between the applicant and the prosecutrix, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if the jail sentence of the applicant is reduced. 8. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant recorded under Section 354 of the IPC is hereby affirmed. The conviction of the applicant recorded under Section 452 of the IPC is altered to Section 451 of the IPC. In view of the compromise entered into between the applicant and the prosecutrix, the jail sentence of the applicant is reduced. The applicant is sentenced to R.I. for 2 months and fine as imposed by the Courts below, in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 1 month (on both the counts). C.C. as per rules.