Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3972
1 CRA-432-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 14th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 432 of 2012
RAJESH SAHU AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. Chandrapal Singh - Advocate for appellants - Absent.
Ms. Vineeta Sharma - Deputy Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
As none has appeared on behalf of the appellants, Shri Anil Upadhyay, Advocate is appointed as amicus curiae to assist this Court.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.01.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Jabalpur (M.P.) in Special Sessions Case No.70 of 2009 whereby the present appellants have been convicted under Sections 456, 354 and 506- B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo two years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/-, each two years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- each and one year RI and fine of Rs.500/- each respectively with default stipulations.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.07.2009 at about 11:30 AM, the husband of the complainant had gone to Raipur in connection with his work. During his absence, the appellants and co-accused Kamlesh allegedly Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 16-01-2026 17:38:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3972 2 CRA-432-2012 knocked at the door of the complainant. Upon her opening the door, the accused forcibly entered her house, threatened her with a knife, outraged her modesty and further threatened to kill her. When the complainant's brother- in-law namely Jagan arrived at the spot, he rebuked the accused whereupon the accused fled from the place of occurrence. On the basis of the report of the incident, Police Station Ranjhi registered a case against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 456, 354 and 506(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and commenced investigation.
4. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the competent Court, which, on its turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions and from where it was received by the trial Court for trial.
5. The learned trial Judge on going through the evidence available in the charge-sheet framed charges against appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 456, 354 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which they denied and claimed for the trial.
6. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses, namely Jyoti Jhariya (PW-1), Jagan Jhariya (PW-2), Smt. Rajni Jhariya (PW-3), Triveni Jhariya (PW-4), Meera Burman (PW-5), Lakhan Gupta (PW-6) Dalvinder Singh (PW-7), Ramkumar Gotiya (PW-8), Sanjeev Tripathi (PW-9), Dr. Tilak Raj Dhingra (PW-10) and Guru Prasad Parashar (PW-11) and placed the documents Ex.P-1 to P-15. In defence, the appellants have examined defence witnesses namely Guddu Burman (DW-1) Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 16-01-2026 17:38:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3972 3 CRA-432-2012 and Rajesh Sahu (DW-2) and exhibited documents Ex. D-1 and D-2.
7. The learned trial Judge after appreciating and marshalling the evidence vide impugned judgment has convicted the appellants for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 456, 354 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code and passed the order of sentence as mentioned above. In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants.
8. Shri Anil Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing as amicus curiae for the appellants submits that the incident in question is of the year 2009. The present appellants were about 30-32 years of age at the time of the offence and have been facing the ordeal of trial for a long period. As per the certificate issued under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., the appellants remained in custody for two days during the course of trial. Having regard to the tender age of the appellants at the time of the incident, the absence of any criminal antecedents, the prolonged pendency of the proceedings since 2009 spanning about 17 years and his cooperative conduct during trial, it is prayed that the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone, with a suitable enhancement of the fine amount.
9. Learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment; however, he raises no objection to the appeal being decided on the question of sentence.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence available on record Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 16-01-2026 17:38:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3972 4 CRA-432-2012 and has rightly convicted the present appellants under Sections 456, 354 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 456, 354 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code calls for no interference.
12. As regards sentence, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the age of the appellants being 30-32 years at the time of the incident in the year 2009, their cooperative conduct during trial, the fact that they are the first-time offenders and the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the substantive jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, while suitably enhancing the fine amount. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of the appellants under Sections 456, 354 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The fine is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- each to Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 456 of the IPC, from Rs.1,000/- each to Rs.3,000/- each for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC and from Rs.500/- each to Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 506-B of the IPC. The total fine thus comes to Rs.10,000/- each. The enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the appellants within a period of two months from today, failing which they shall undergo the sentence as originally awarded by the learned trial Court. Any fine amount already deposited shall be adjusted towards the enhanced fine. The entire amount of fine so deposited shall be paid to the victim as compensation under Section 395 of the BNSS, 2023.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 16-01-2026 17:38:56NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3972 5 CRA-432-2012
13. The present appellants are on bail, their bail bond shall stand discharged.
14. The order of the trial Court pertaining to disposal of the property is hereby affirmed.
15. Let record of the trial Court along with a copy of this order be sent back to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
16. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE THK Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 16-01-2026 17:38:56