Chandar @ Ramchandra vs State of Madhya Pradesh

S.R. Waghmare, J.—This revision petition has been filed u/s 397 r/w S. 401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.07.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar in Criminal Appeal No. 45/2012, whereby the petitioner was convicted for offence under Sections 354, 457 and 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 200/-, 500/- & 300/- respectively in default of payment of fine he was to further undergo three months R.I. each count. Brief facts necessary for elucidation are that on 22.08.2009 at night complainant Kamlabai was sleeping in her house, at about 2:00 p.m. the accused petitioner entered her house, due to creaking of the door the complainant awoke and saw that the accused was sitting on her bed and caught her hand, she shouted and caught his collar. Upon hearing of the noise of the complainant Kamlabai; her brother Gulab and her son Tolaram came there and saw the petitioner. Petitioner bit the finger of the complainant and ran away. Upon hearing her shouting her neighbour Shantabai also came there. Complainant Kamlabai along with all the witnesses went to the police station Digthan and filed a compliant. Upon the complaint of the complainant a case was registered against the petitioner. After framing of charge and recording of evidence, petitioner was convicted for offence under Sections 354, 457 and 324 of IPC, hence the present revision.

Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the conviction is contrary to the principles of law and Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence and there are material omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses (P.W. 1) Kamlabai, (P.W. 2) Gulab and (P.W. 3) Tolaram, who have not been supported the prosecution case. Despite which both the Courts below, have erred in convicting the accused/petitioner. Counsel submitted that the medical evidence available on record and Dr. Puransingh (P.W. 5) also does not support the prosecution since he has stated that both the injuries were simple in nature and had occurred by a sharp edged instrument and the prosecutrix has not alleged that the accused was carrying any weapon, it has been alleged that it was case of false implication by the prosecution since her husband taken a loan from the accused Chandar. Counsel also urged that custodial sentence was not necessary for offence under Sections 457 and 324 of IPC. He submitted that the fine amount has already been deposited in the lower Court. However, the prosecution has been unable to prove the offence under Sections 354, 457 and 324 of IPC. Counsel also submitted that the petitioner has almost undergone custodial sentence of more than 2� months. Counsel prayed that the revision deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set-aside. In alternate Counsel has prayed that if the Court is satisfied regarding the conviction the custodial sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.

Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner and stated that there is concurrent finding against the petitioner and the judgment of the Appellate Court is in accordance with law and does not require any interference. Counsel stated that short sentence of one year has been imposed. She candidly admitted that petitioner was in custody since 23.07.2013 and she prayed that the revision filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

On considering the above submissions, I find that the impugned order is based on valid and cogent reasons and proper marshalling of evidence and no infirmity can be found with the impugned judgment of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, I have no hesitation in upholding the conviction of the accused/petitioner for offence under Sections 354, 457 and 324 of IPC. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is the 51 years of age and the fact that the short sentence is involved and the fact that the petitioner has undergone some of the custodial sentence, the alternate prayer of the Counsel for the petitioner being limited and reasonable is allowed in the interest of justice. The custodial sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine amount is further raised by Rs. 5,000/-; which shall be deposited by the accused/petitioner and paid to the complainant Kamlabai as compensation u/S. 357 of the Cr.P.C. within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. On failure to pay the fine within the stipulated period and the petitioner shall undergo the remaining sentence as directed by the lower Court.

With the aforesaid modification the revision is partly allowed to the extent herein above indicated. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned lower Court for compliance.

Cc. as per rules.