Badri Prasad vs State of M.P.

Tarun Kumar Kaushal, J.—The present revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 13.8.2005 passed by the Special Judge, Raisen in Criminal Appeal No. 42/2005 affirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner awarded by the trial Court vide judgment dated 18.1.2005 in regular Criminal Case No. 62/2003, by which the petitioner was convicted u/s 456 of IPC and sentenced to six months RI and with fine of Rs. 100/- and u/s 354 of IPC he was sentenced to six months RI. According to prosecution, in the intervening night of 30-31 of March, 2003, the petitioner entered in the house of the prosecutrix aged about 30 years (P.W. 1) and attempted sexual assault while she was sleeping. Thereafter, the petitioner ran away out of the house. At that time husband of the prosecutrix had gone to out side of the village. In the morning at about 8.00 am, the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her husband and one Chokidar also. prosecutrix P.W./1 lodged the FIR at Police Station, Raisen on 31.3.2003 at about 4.15 p.m. A case at crime No. 89/03 u/s 456 and 354 of IPC was registered against the petitioner. After completing the investigation charge sheet was submitted.

Trial Court framed charges under Sections 354 and 456 of IPC against the petitioner. The petitioner abjured guilt. To substantiate the case of the prosecution statements of prosecutrix (P.W. 1), Dallu Singh husband of the prosecutrix (P.W. 2), Gangaram (P.W. 3), Shiv Prasad (P.W. 4), Parshuram Rai (P.W. 5) were recorded.

After appreciating the aforesaid evidence, trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as above. In appeal aforesaid conviction and sentence was affirmed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are material discrepancies in the statements of the prosecutrix and her husband. During the course of investigation, trial and appeal the petitioner had suffered custody of twenty days. This incident took place about ten years ago. Noting objectionable has been reported against the petitioner during this period. At this point of time, no useful purpose would be served in sending the petitioner back to jail.

On the other hand, learned Penal Lawyer submitted that the petitioner deserves no leniency.

On perusing the statements of P.W./1 and P.W./2, there appears no error in appreciation of evidence. The petitioner has entered in the house of the prosecutrix and has attempted sexual assault on her. The conviction under Sections 456 and 354 of IPC deserves to be and is hereby affirmed.

In view of the aforesaid, twenty days custody period appears to be just, proper and sufficient. However, for offence u/s 354 of IPC, the sentence of Rs. 5,000/- would be just, proper and sufficient and would meet ends of justice. For offence u/s 456 and 354 of IPC, the petitioner is sentenced to twenty days undergone custody period and u/s 354 IPC also with fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment of two months. The petitioner shall remain present before 6th of August, 2013 for depositing the fine amount or to undergo jail sentence, as the case may be. Revision is allowed in part, as indicated above.