Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 145 (MP)

Shahjad Kha v. State of M. P.

2014-01-30

N.K.GUPTA

body2014
ORDER 1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 31.1.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in special case No.52/2006, whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under section 354 of IPC and sentenced with 2 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. 2. The prosecution’s case, in short, is that, on 20.7.2006, at about 2 p.m., the prosecutrix who was resident of village Babchiya, Tahsil Bairasiya, District Bhopal went to a Nala to answer the call of nature but, when she was coming back, the appellant appeared at the scene of crime and held her hand with bad intention. The appellant asked her to go behind the bushes with him but, the prosecutrix snatched her hand and ran away. She informed about the incident to her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law and therefore, FIR, Ex.P/1 was lodged at Outpost-Lalariya, Police Station Bairasiya, District Bhopal. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before JMFC, Bairasiya, who committed the case to Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bhopal. 3. The applicant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea in the case and no defence evidence was adduced. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. In the present case, the prosecutrix (PW 1) was the sole eye witness. She had alleged against the appellant that he held her hand with bad intention and tried to snatch her towards bushes. However, she could escape from the spot. A timely lodged FIR, Ex.P/6 was lodged by the prosecutrix and she intimated about the incident to her mother-in-law Gopi Bai (PW 2), her husband Keshari (PW 6) and brother-in-law Lal Singh (PW 7). All the three witnesses, though interested witnesses have corroborated about the information given by the prosecutrix. 6. Some minor contradictions arose in the cross examination of the prosecutrix (PW 1) about the injuries sustained in her hand due to breaking of bangles, whereas she did not inform the police about breaking of bangles. However, such exaggeration does not discard the entire testimony of the prosecutrix. These are the minor contradictions. If a witness exaggerated in telling the facts then, it is the duty of the Court to pick up the grains of truth from the chasm of falsehood. However, such exaggeration does not discard the entire testimony of the prosecutrix. These are the minor contradictions. If a witness exaggerated in telling the facts then, it is the duty of the Court to pick up the grains of truth from the chasm of falsehood. No enmity was established by the appellant to show that he was falsely implicated in the matter. Under such circumstances, the testimony of the prosecutrix which was duly corroborated by the timely lodged FIR appears to be believable and the trial Court has rightly believed the testimony of the prosecutrix and therefore, it is proved beyond doubt that the appellant has committed an offence under section 354 of IPC. The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under section 354 of IPC. 7. So far as the sentence is concerned, the appellant was the first offender but, there was no reason to release him on probation. The trial Court has directed the sentence of 2 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- agianst the appellant. According to the provisions of section 354 (4) of the Cr.P.C., if offence is punishable for imprisonment of one year or more and if sentence of imprisonment for a term less than 3 months is imposed then, it is the duty of the Court to mention the reason for imposing such a lesser punishment. In the present case, the learned Special Judge did not give any reason for imposing such a lesser sentence and therefore, the provisions of section 354 (4) of the Cr.P.C. is flouted. When the trial Court found that the appellant is not to be sentenced for a period of more than 3 months rigorous imprisonment therefore, it is a case in which no jail sentence should be directed against the appellant. He remained in the custody for 3 days and therefore, it would be proper to reduce his sentence to the period for which he remained in the custody by enhancement of fine amount. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction directed against the appellant for offence under section 354 of IPC is maintained but, sentence is reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody with the direction that fine amount is enhanced from a sum of Rs.500/- to a sum of Rs.5,000/-. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction directed against the appellant for offence under section 354 of IPC is maintained but, sentence is reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody with the direction that fine amount is enhanced from a sum of Rs.500/- to a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The appellant is directed to deposit the remaining fine amount within two months from today, failing which he shall undergo for 6 months rigorous imprisonment. If fine is deposited then, a sum of Rs.4,000/- be provided to the husband of the prosecutrix Keshari S/o Devilal, R/o village Bhairavpura, District Bhopal, by way of compensation. 9. At present, the appellant is on bail. His presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged. 10. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information and compliance.