Suresh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—The applicant has been convicted of offence punishable under Sections 354 and 451 of IPC and sentenced to 6 months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.300/- and 6 months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- respectively vide judgment dated 10.10.2006 passed by the learned JMFC, Waraseoni in criminal case No.1128/2006. In criminal appeal No.113/2006 vide judgment dated 5.9.2007, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments, the applicant has preferred the present revision.

The prosecution''s case, in short, is that, on 3.11.2005 the prosecutrix (P.W.1) was present in her house, situated at village Khairlanji, Police Station Rampayali, District Balaghat. At about 2.30 p.m. the applicant entered in her house and asked about her family members. When he was informed that there was nobody in the house, the applicant held one hand of the prosecutrix and pressed her breasts. When the prosecutrix started weeping the applicant gave 2-3 slaps on her right cheek. Thereafter, the applicant left her house because the prosecutrix was continuously weeping. In the evening, when parents of the prosecutrix came back, she narrated about the incident to them. On the next day morning, she went to the outpost Khairlanji and lodged an FIR. The police registered a case and after due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the concerned JMFC.

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

The learned JMFC after considering the prosecution''s evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above, whereas appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed in toto.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

In the present case, the prosecutrix (P.W.1) was the sole eye witness, who told about the incident to her mother Hirawanti (P.W.2) and uncle Ajab Lal (P.W.3). No material discrepancy could be brought in the cross-examination of these witnesses. It is suggested to the prosecutrix that the outpost Khairlanji was hardly 2 kms away from her house, whereas report was lodged at about 10.10 a.m. on the next day. It is true that the prosecutrix informed her uncle before the evening but, decision was to be taken by the parents as to whether any FIR was to be lodged or not and therefore, if decision was taken late in the evening then, the FIR could not be lodged on the same day. The FIR was lodged on the next day morning and therefore, it cannot be said that it was delayed.

The prosecutrix accepted the suggestion that prior to the incident, the applicant had never visited her house. However, it would be apparent from the evidence given by the prosecutrix that the applicant came to her house and enquired about her parents etc. and when he found that the prosecutrix was all alone, he held her hand and pressed her breasts. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the applicant has no reason to visit the house of the prosecutrix.

A suggestion was given to the prosecutrix that prior to the incident, a quarrel took place between the applicant and Kirti etc. It was suggested that in quarrel, brother of the prosecutrix was also involved but, name of brother even was not suggested to the prosecutrix and no suggestion was given to Hirawanti and Ajablal about such quarrel. If brother of the prosecutrix had tried to resolve the problem between the applicant and Kirti etc. then, there was no need to the prosecutrix to lodge a false FIR against the applicant. Under such circumstances, no reason could be established by the applicant, so that he would have been falsely implicated in the matter. Testimony of the prosecutrix is duly established by the prosecution and no reasonable doubt is created by the applicant. The trial Court has rightly convicted the applicant of offence under Sections 451 and 354 of IPC.

So far as the sentence is concerned, the applicant was a youth of 24 years of age at the time of incident and he was the first offender. He could not get any advantage of probation on the basis of his age and looking to the crime committed by him, no such probation can be given to him otherwise. However, as submitted by his counsel, it is true that he has suffered the trial, appeal and revision for last 7-8 years and he remained in the custody for 3 weeks during the pendency of this revision. He was a youth having no criminal background and therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, being the first offender, his sentence may be reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby partly allowed. His conviction of offence punishable under Sections 354 and 451 of IPC is hereby maintained but, sentence is reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody during the trial, appeal and revision. There is no change in the fine amount.

The applicant is on bail. His presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged.

Copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below along with their records for information and compliance.