Juwansingh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The petitioner has preferred this petition against the judgment and order dated 27.08.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar passed in CRA No.124/2011 confirming the conviction under section 452, 354, 323 of the IPC and sentence of 1 year, 1 year and 3 months RI with fine of Rs.300/-,200/- and 100/- recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhar in criminal case no.878/2007 vide judgment dated18.04.2011.

According to the prosecution case, on 06.12.2005 at about 05:00 in the evening, the complainant was in her house. Suddenly the accused/petitioner entered into the house, caught her hand and dragged her towards outside stating that he will marry her and keep her as his wife. When neighbour Magnath tried to intervene, he gave a blow of bolder on his head. Magnath got scared and ran away but Naharsingh and Gulsingh reached on the spot and rescued her. The matter was reported to the police on the next day i.e. on 07.12.2015, which was registered as crime no.213/2005 at police station Tirla District Dhar. After usual investigation the police filed charge sheet.

The petitioner was charged, tried and convicted as stated above.

This petition is preferred on several grounds but during the arguments learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not want to press merits of the case. His only contention is that the incident took place in the year 2005. The prosecutrix was major at the time of the incident. The petitioner was having affair but later she denied to marry him, therefore, he requested her to reconsider his proposal. Nothing had happened at the time. The petitioner was 30 years old at the time of incident. Now he is married and quite mature man having responsibilities of minor children and wife. He is sole breadwinner of family. No one else is there to take care of his family. Due to imprisonment, his family is facing financial hardship and it has become difficult for them to survive. He is first offender and has no criminal antecedents. Neither prior to the alleged incident nor thereafter any criminal case is ever registered against him. No useful purpose will be served by keeping him in jail after 16 years of the incident, therefore, his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. However the facts contended by the petitioner are not controverted.

I have considered rival contentions of the learned counsel appeared on behalf of the parties.

Considering the nature of the incident, age of the parties, time elapsed and other facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, ends of justice would be sub-served if the prayer of the petitioner is accepted to some extent.

Therefore, the petition is partly allowed. While conviction of the petitioner recorded by the learned appellate Court and confirmed by the learned judicial magistrate under Sections 452, 354, 323 of IPC is upheld, his sentence for the offences under section 452 and 354 is reduced to the period already undergone alongwith the fine imposed by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.

The petitioner is in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

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

All the IAs pending in this case, stand closed.

With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed off.