Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 179 (MP)

Sumit Patel v. State of M. P.

2020-02-04

J.P.GUPTA

body2020
ORDER 1. Heard on IA No. 14878/2019 which is an application for grant of bail. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has completed near about 6 months in custody, therefore, the revision may kindly be heard finally. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this revision petition is finally heard. 3. This revision petition has been filed by the applicant under section 397/401 of the CrPC being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.7.2019 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 400283/16 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 1.9.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad in criminal case No. 31/13, whereby the applicant has been convicted under section 452 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs. 500/-; further convicted under section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months with fine of Rs. 500/- and further convicted under section 354 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulation as mentioned in the impugned judgment. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.12.2012 at about 2:30 p.m. the prosecutrix was lonely in the house and the applicant/accused came to her house and asked the prosecutrix for towel. When the prosecutrix went to fetch towel, the applicant/accused taking the advantage of loneliness of the prosecutrix, entered into the house and bolted the house from inside and caught hold the hands of the prosecutrix with bad intention and forcibly tossed her on the ground, resulting she sustained injury on her left leg and waist. The applicant/ accused also pressed her breast. She cried out and ultimately she got rid of the applicant/accused and narrated her tale of woe to her sister Shivangi. The applicant/accused running away from the spot threatened the prosecutrix to be killed if she disclosed anything about the incident to anybody else. Thereafter, she along with her father went to the police station Kotwali and lodged an FIR against the applicant, on which, Crime No. 905/12 was registered against him for the offence under sections 452, 354 and 323 of the IPC. Thereafter, she along with her father went to the police station Kotwali and lodged an FIR against the applicant, on which, Crime No. 905/12 was registered against him for the offence under sections 452, 354 and 323 of the IPC. The applicant was tried by the J.M.F.C., Hoshangabad and learned J.M.F.C. on appreciation of evidence on record, convicted the applicant under sections 452, 354 and 323 of IPC and sentenced accordingly. Being aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred a criminal appeal bearing No. 400283/16 before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad. The learned appellate Court by the impugned judgment dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he does not want to press the conviction recorded by both the Courts below. It is submitted that the incident had taken place on 28.12.2012 and on that date the offence under section 354 of the IPC was not punishable with minimum period of jail sentence even the jail sentence was not mandatory. Therefore, this case will be governed with the provisions stand before 3.2.2013. In the case the applicant is in jail since 26.7.2019 and the alleged incident had occurred in the year 2012 and more than 7 years have elapsed by now. The applicant is not habitual criminal. The alleged incident took place all of a sudden. The applicant has suffered the jail sentence near about 6 months, the ends of justice would be met, if the applicant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Learned Dy. GA for the State has supported the conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the judgment and order passed by both the Courts below and also perused the record. In view of this Court, the conviction is well founded and no interference is warranted. Since the learned counsel for the applicant has not pressed for convictions of the applicant recorded by the Courts below under sections 452, 323 and 354 of the IPC, the same are hereby affirmed. However, looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in the jail for the whole period. The applicant has suffered the jail sentence near about 6 months. However, looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in the jail for the whole period. The applicant has suffered the jail sentence near about 6 months. In these circumstances, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if the applicant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him as mentioned above. 8. Consequently, the criminal revision is partly allowed. The convictions of the applicant recorded by both the Courts below under sections 452, 323 and 354 of the IPC are hereby affirmed and the fine amount is also affirmed. However, the sentences of the applicant recorded by both the Courts below are hereby set aside. The applicant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him i.e. more than 6 months RI. 9. The applicant is in jail. He is directed to be released immediately from jail if not required to be detained in any other case subject to deposit of fine amount, if not paid yet. 10. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately to the concerned Court below along with a copy of this order for its compliance and necessary action. ..................