Satish vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Tarun Kumar Kaushal, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 29/09/2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Special Case No. 37/2001 convicting the appellant u/s 354 IPC and sentenced to 6 months R.I and Rs.500/- fine.

Facts of the case, in short, are that on 30/04/2001 at about 10.00 pm while prosecutrix aged 19 years (PW-3) was cleaning utensils back side of her house, appellant came and subjected her to indecent assault. On raising cries by prosecutrix (PW-3) and on seeing that Jithani of prosecutrix Chameli Bai (PW-4) is coming, appellant ran away from the spot.

FIR Ex.P/2 was lodged by prosecutrix (PW-3) at Police Station-Mokhed, District-Chhindwara. A case at 0/2001 was registered against the appellant u/s 354 IPC. On 03/05/2001, on the basis of Ex.P/2, a case at police station AJAK u/s 3(1)(11), The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short SC/ST Act) read with Section 354 IPC was registered against the appellant. On 03/05/2001 appellant was arrested.

After completing investigation police AJAK, submitted a charge sheet against the appellant u/s 354 IPC/3(1) (11) SC/ST Act in concerned court. Trial Court framed charges u/s 354 IPC and u/s 3(1)(11) SC/ST Act against the appellant. Appellant abjured guilt. Defence of the appellant was that of false implication on account of family dispute and enmity.

To substantiate the case of prosecution, statements of Ganesh, father-in-law (PW-1), Dr. Ramgopal Kaushal (PW-2), prosecutrix (PW-3), Chameli Bai, Jithani of prosecutrix (PW-4), Sinod, husband of prosecutrix (PW-5), Amit Sanghi, SDOP (PW-6), Sakalwati Bai, mother-in-law of prosecutrix (PW-7), M.P. Mishra, (PW-8) Dinesh Shukla, Tehsildar (PW-9) and V. D. Chaudhary (PW-10) were recorded. To substantiate the defence statement of Ramesh (DW-1) was recorded by the trial court.

Appreciating the aforesaid evidence, trial court acquitted the appellant of the charge u/s 3(1)(11) SC/ST Act However convicted u/s 354 IPC and sentenced as above.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned judgment on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper. Trial court has disbelieved the statements of witnesses in part and acquitted the appellant of the charge u/s 3(1)(11) SC/ST Act. Conviction of appellant is based on doubtful and insufficient evidence. Conviction is bad in law and sentence is harsh. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer supported the findings of conviction and sentence.

Admittedly, there had been no injuries on the person of prosecutrix. State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of appellant u/s 3(1)(11) SC/ST Act. Prosecutrix conceded in her cross examination that on 01/05/2001, appellant has lodged a report against herself and her family members. They were summoned by police at police station. Thereafter on 02/05/2001 this report has been lodged by her against the appellant.

Evidence of their family members like Ganesh, father-in-law (PW-1), Chameli Bai, Jithani (PW-4) Sinod, husband (PW-5) and Sakalwati Bai, mother-in-law (PW-7), they are corroborating the statement of prosecutrix on material particulars and also all are admitting the fact that there had been quarrel between them earlier to the incident.

On perusal of impugned judgment, I see no perversity and mistake in appreciation of evidence of the prosecution witnesses in so far as conviction of the appellant u/s 354 IPC is concerned. I find no reason for prosecutrix to impute false allegation against the appellant involving herself to that extent. Accordingly conviction of appellant u/s 354 IPC deserves no interference.

At this stage learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this incident had occurred more than 10 years ago. Admittedly both parties have lodged reports against each other. During trial appellant had suffered custody from 3/05/2001 to 8/05/2001 i.e 6 days. No useful purpose would be served in sending appellant back in jail after such long time for such incident.

Considering the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant, it appears to be a fit case for consideration on the point of sentence. In view of the facts that appellant has been acquitted of charge u/s 3(1)(11) SC/ST Act, prosecutrix lodged this report only after lodging of report against her by the appellant and further in view of totality and facts and circumstances of the case, custody period of 6 days appears to be just, proper and sufficient for offence u/s 354 IPC. At the same time in the interest of justice fine amount is required to be enhanced. In addition to custody period of 6 days, fine of Rs.1500/-seem to be just and proper and will meet ends of justice. Accordingly, appellant is sentenced with fine of Rs.1500/-and in default of payment of fine appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months.

As discussed above, appeal is allowed in part on the point of sentence only. Conviction of appellant u/s 354 IPC is affirmed. Jail sentence is reduced to already undergone period. Fine sentence is enhanced to Rs.1500/-.

Appellant is directed to remain present in the trial court on or before 27th March, 2012 to deposit the balance fine amount or to undergo default sentence as the case may be.

Appeal is allowed in part.