Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 808 (MP)

Ashish Jain @ Vikku v. State of M. P.

2017-07-07

S.K.AWASTHI

body2017
ORDER : S.K. Awasthi, J. This Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed against the judgment dated 19.05.2016 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge Mungawali District Ashok Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 117/2015, affirming the judgment dated 17.10.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungawali, District Ashok Nagar in criminal case No. 83/2014 by which applicant has been convicted for the offence under Section 509 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment, with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant is working as a teacher in Vidhya Convent High School, Badarwas District Ashok Nagar. On 26.01.2014 at about 10:00 am, when the procession of the students of school was passing through the market, the applicant with intend to insult the modesty of complainant used filthy words against her. The incident was reported to the Police Station Bahadurpur and a case was registered for the offence punishable under Section 354-A(1)(iv) of IPC. On completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungawali district Ashok Nagar. After framing of charges and recording of evidence, offence under Section 509 of IPC was found proved and the applicant was convicted as stated herein above. 3. An appeal was preferred by the present applicant against the judgment dated 17.10.2015, which was dismissed by the appellate court vide impugned judgment. Hence, the revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued at length and submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated and thus wrongly convicted while he has not committed any offence. He further submits that the courts below committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence, correctness of the finding, therefore, the impugned orders liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant has no previous antecedents. There was previous enmity between the parties and the applicant shall maintain a good behaviour in future. Therefore, since applicant has already served approximately 12 days jail sentence, same be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant and the amount of fine may be reasonably enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that after due appreciation of evidence, the Courts below have found the applicant guilty of offence. Therefore, since applicant has already served approximately 12 days jail sentence, same be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant and the amount of fine may be reasonably enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that after due appreciation of evidence, the Courts below have found the applicant guilty of offence. It is submitted that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is called for the concurrent finding recorded by the courts below. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it is evident that the report of the incident was lodged on the same day and the commission of alleged offence is established on the basis of statements of the witnesses. Hence on the basis of the material available on record, the courts below have not committed any illegality in convicting the applicant for the offence under Section 509 of IPC. 7. It is anyways a trite position of law, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar, (2008) 9 SCC 475 , that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. A revisional Court cannot convert itself into a regular Court of Appeal. 8. Hence, on the basis of material available on record, the courts below have not committed any error in convicting the applicant under Section 509 of IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant under Section 509 IPC is hereby affirmed. 9. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, looking to the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that the applicant has already served approximately 12 days jail sentence, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant is reduced to the sentence already undergone by him subject to depositing additional fine of Rs. 1,000/- by the applicant within a period of 30 days from today. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount, the applicant shall suffer one month RI. 10. With the aforesaid modification in the judgment of trial Court, the revision is disposed of.