Arjun vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The petitioner has preferred this petition against concurrent finding of both the Courts - Judicial Magistrate First Class, Petlawad and Additional Sessions Judge, Petlawad, of his conviction under Section 354 of IPC and sentence of one year RI with fine of Rs.1000/-.

The trial Court judgment is dated 12/10/2017 passed in Criminal Case No.479/12 while the appellate Court judgment is dated 28/08/2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.182/2017.

Allegation against the petitioner is that on 28/06/2012 when the prosecutrix was going back home after finishing his work at about 7 P.M. finding her alone, he embarrassed her from the back and thus outraged her modesty. She intimated her husband and along with her husband and 2 other villager, who reached on the spot at her screams Punja and Raju went to the Police Station and reported the matter. FIR No.262/12 Ex.P/3 was registered and investigated by the police. Charge-sheet was filed. After usual investigation, which culminated in the conviction of the appellant as stated above.

The petitioner has preferred this petition on several grounds but learned counsel submitted that he does not want to press the petition on merits. His submission is that the accused is first offender. No other criminal case has ever been registered against him. The prosecutrix was a married lady and was 30 years old at the time of the incident. There was a dispute on account of some labour work between the prosecutrix and the accused, therefore, she has falsely implicated the present petitioner. The accused is facing trial since last 7 years and has always cooperated with the trial as well as hearing of the appeal. He is now about 40 years old, a married man having minor children with no other person to look after his family. His family is facing financial crisis and their survival has become very difficult. Therefore, his jail term be reduced to the period already undergone.

It is further pleaded that the prosecutrix has admitted in her examination before the Court that she had demanded Rs.12,000/- for not filing the report or to compromise the case, but the accused was not having such resources to pay the money demanded by her, therefore, she has prosecuted him and got him convicted. This fact alone shows malafide of the prosecutrix as well as poverty of the petitioner. Therefore, sentence of the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone, which is about 2 ½ months, precisely it is 81 days.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

Having regard to the nature of offence, age of the prosecutrix and the fact and circumstances narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, statement of the prosecutrix, particularly in respect of her admission about her demand of money, failure of which was the reason for prosecution of the petitioner and other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to accede the prayer of the petitioner, therefore, the petition is partly allowed.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 354 of IPC is maintained. Sentence awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court is reduced and now the petitioner is awarded 3 months R.I. for the offence under Section 354 of IPC along with fine of Rs.2000/-.

The order of the trial Court regarding disposal of the case property is hereby confirmed.

With the aforesaid modification, the petition is partly allowed. The judgment and sentence is modified on the aforesaid terms.