Ramlal Gadari vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 354 and 323 of IPC vide judgment dated 1.5.2012 passed by the learned JMFC, Katni (Shri K.N. Bhardwaj) in criminal case No. 1124/2010 and sentenced for 1 year''s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and 6 month''s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- respectively. In criminal appeal No. 85/2012 vide judgment dated 9.11.2012, the learned Sessions Judge, Katni dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the applicant has preferred the present revision. The prosecution''s case, in short, is that, on 6.4.2010, the prosecutrix (P.W. 1) was cleaning her house, situated at village Waigaha (Police Station Barhi, District Katni), the applicant went inside her house and pressed her breasts. Thereafter, he took the prosecutrix in front of her house and assaulted her by fists and dragged her. Due to arrival of the witnesses, the prosecutrix could be saved. She had lodged an FIR, Ex. P/1 on the same day at Police Station Barhi, where a case was registered. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court.

The applicant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea in the matter but, he has stated that he was innocent. However, no defence evidence was adduced.

The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katni, after considering the prosecution''s evidence convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above, whereas, the learned Sessions Judge, Katni dismissed the appeal in toto.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was the first offender, who has a family. He gave his field to the prosecutrix and her husband for cultivation. It is alleged against him that he assaulted the prosecutrix by fists and therefore, jail sentence for the offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC appears to be excessive. Similarly, the applicant remained in the custody for approximately 5 months and it appears that he has undergone an appropriate jail sentence in these 5 months for the offence punishable u/s 354 of IPC and therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody.

After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the applicant does not challenge the conviction directed against him. However, looking to the statements of the prosecutrix (P.W. 1), Kishanlal (P.W. 2), a timely lodged FIR, Ex. P/1 and medical report proved by Dr. Sunil Parashar (P.W. 4), it appears that the trial Court has rightly convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under sections 354 and 323 of IPC and therefore, there is no basis by which any interference can be done in the conviction directed by the trial Court.

So far as the sentence is concerned, the applicant may be imposed with fine for the offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC, whereas he may be sentenced with jail sentence of 6 months for the offence punishable u/s 354 of IPC. Similarly, looking to his overt-act and the fact that the applicant remained in the custody for 5 months, it appears that his jail sentence for the offence punishable u/s 354 of IPC may be reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby partly allowed. Conviction directed against the applicant for the offence punishable under sections 354 and 323 of IPC is hereby maintained but, the sentence is reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody. There is no change in the fine amount.

At present, the applicant is in jail, therefore, office is directed to arrange for issuance of supersession warrant accordingly, so that the applicant may be released, without any delay. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court as well as to the appellate Court along with their records for information and compliance.