Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 925 (MP)

Pramod Kumar v. State of M. P.

2013-08-06

G.S.Solanki

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by conviction and sentence recorded by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla vide order dated 19.3.1997 passed in S.T. No. 22/1996 whereby the appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under sections 363, 366, 342, 506B of the IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, R.I. for 6 months and R.I. for 6 months respectively with default stipulation. 2. The facts, in short, are that on 15.1.1996 when prosecutrix had gone to the back side of her house, the appellant caught hold her, took her inside the house, bolted the door from inside, and told her to marry with him. When prosecutrix refused to marry with him, he gave threatening to kill her. He restrained the prosecutrix for about 3-4 hours and when her father and uncle came there, they released the prosecutrix. The report was lodged at P.S. Bamhani, District Mandla. The appellant was arrested. 3. After usual investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted before JMFC, Mandla, who in turn, committed the case to the Sessions Court. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges under Sections 363, 366, 342, 506B of the IPC against the appellant. 4. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. 5. On appraisal of evidence on record, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove, hence this appeal. 6. The prosecutrix, who is present in the Court, has submitted that she has performed marriage with the appellant, they have two children out of this wedlock, now they are living peacefully and happily together and she does not want to prosecute this matter further. A compromise petition I.A. No. 18445/2013 has been filed in this regard. 7. In view of the submission made by the prosecutrix and compromise petition filed by the parties, since the prosecutrix and appellant have performed and they have entered into a compromise, in these circumstances, the offence under sections 342, 506B of the IPC are compoundable, therefore, the appellant is acquitted to the charges under sections 342, 506B of the IPC. 8. In view of the submission made by the prosecutrix and compromise petition filed by the parties, since the prosecutrix and appellant have performed and they have entered into a compromise, in these circumstances, the offence under sections 342, 506B of the IPC are compoundable, therefore, the appellant is acquitted to the charges under sections 342, 506B of the IPC. 8. So far as offence under section 366 of the IPC is concerned, I have perused the statement of Sangeeta (PW 1), who stated that the appellant kidnapped her and restrained her in her house and told her that he wants to marry with her. He did not molest her or commit rape on her. When statement of Ashok Banerjee (PW 2), father of prosecutrix is concerned, he has not stated anything in regard to threatening given by the appellant to the prosecutrix. Thus, in my opinion, the trial Court has committed illegality in not appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in recording the conviction of the appellant under section 366 of the IPC, same is liable to be set aside. 9. So far as offence under section 363 of the IPC is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he does not want to press the conviction recorded by the trial Court under section 363 of the IPC. However, the appellant has suffered the jail sentence of about 3 months and 12 days, the incident had taken place 16-17 years before the parties have compromised the matter and settled their dispute out of the Court, therefore, the ends of justice would be met, if the appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone and fine is enhanced. 10. Since, the learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction recorded by the trial Court under section 363 of the IPC, same is hereby affirmed. However, The appellant has suffered the jail sentence of about 3 months and 12 days, the incident had taken place 16-17 years before, no useful purpose is going to be served by again sending the appellant to the jail. Thus,in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if the appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone i.e. about 3 months and 12 days and fine is enhanced. 11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Thus,in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if the appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone i.e. about 3 months and 12 days and fine is enhanced. 11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. In view of the compromise made by the parties, the appellant is acquitted to the charges under sections 342, 506B of the IPC. 12. The conviction of the appellant recorded by the Court below under section 366 of the IPC is hereby set aside. The appellant is also acquitted to the charge under section 366 of the IPC. 13. Since the learned counsel for the appellant has not pressed for the conviction of the appellant recorded by the Court below under section 363 of the IPC, same is hereby affirmed. However, the sentence of the appellant recorded by the Court under section 363 of the IPC is reduced. The appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone i.e. about 3 months and 12 days and fine is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1000/-. Let remaining fine amount of Rs. 500/- be deposited by the appellant within one month from today. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall have to undergo S.I. for further one month. 14. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. 15. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately along with the copy of this judgment for information and necessary action.