Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Bathama vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 23 June, 2016
1
Ravi Batham Vs. State of M.P.
Cr.R.426.2015
23/06/2016
Shri Dheerendra Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.S. Rathore Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/State.
Counsel for the State is heard on the question of admission.
The incident took place on 5.4. 2010 when the prosecutrix aged about 6 to 7 years was playing with her mother along with other children. The accused Ravi Batham came to the house and caught hold of her hand, pressed her breast and used force after shutting her mouth as a result of which she sustained injuries. Thereafter he took her to a lonely place and asked the prosecutrix not to disclose the event to anyone. The prosecutrix thereafter ranway from his house While running away she met her aunt Ramkumari PW/3 and disclosed the entire incident whereafter she went home and disclosed the incident to her mother. FIR was thereafter lodged. MLC was conducted showing minor injury of human teeth bite impression above right nipple. Thereafter investigation was conducted and chargesheet was filed.
In the trial seven prosecution witnesses, namely, Pushpa Batham (PW/1), Badami Devi (PW/2), Rajkumari Devi (PW/3), Hariom (PW/4), Dinesh Birghare (PW/5), Atar Singh (PW/6) and Dr. A.K. Gupta (PW/7) were examined and cross-examined whereafter the petitioner was questioned on the evidence that came on record. No defence was put up by the petitioner except denying all the allegations. The trial court returned finding of guilty, convicting and sentencing the petitioner to two-two years RI u/Ss. 354 and 324 IPC each. Sentences were directed to run concurrently.
On filing an appeal the same was disposed of though upholding the conviction under both the offences but the sentence was reduced in regard to both the offence from two 2 Ravi Batham Vs. State of M.P. Cr.R.426.2015 years to one year RI, while fine amount was enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- u/S. 354 of IPC and to Rs. 1,000/- u/S. 323 of IPC.
The trial court found that the prosecutrix, aunt of the prosecutrix Rajkumari Devi PW/3 and mother of the prosecutrix Badami Devi PW/2 could not be discredited by the defence and stood firm of their statements made in the examination-in- chief. The evidence adduced by the prosecutrix could not be impeached by the defence. The marshaling of the evidence and the application of the relevant law for arriving at the findings do not appear to suffer from any material irregularity or impropriety. The findings are not perverse as the same are supported by unimpeachable evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The appellate court has rightly reduced the sentences and enhanced the amount of fine.
However learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage contends that the appellant is a first offender which fact is not denied by the other side. It is submitted by him that when the offence was committed in 2010 the maximum punishment provided for an offence u/S. 354 was two years or fine or both with no stipulation of minimum period of penalty. However, subsequently, the law was amended on 3.2.2013 when the minimum punishment was prescribed as one year and maximum as five years with fine. It is submitted that the petitioner needs to be dealt with leniency looking to his aged which is 26 years. It is further submitted that the rival parties are neighbors and to ensure peace in neighborhood it would be appropriate that punishment be reduced to the period of custody already undergone which is about two and half months.
The learned trial judge and the appellate judge have dealt with the aspect of quantum of penalty in detail. It is held by both the courts below that offence of this nature where 3 Ravi Batham Vs. State of M.P. Cr.R.426.2015 prosecutrix is a minor girl aged bout 8 years whose modesty was violated by the appellant, should be dealt with severely without any leniency.
This court has no doubt that findings recorded by both the courts below in regard to quantum of punishment are not only appropriate but in tune with the present social times where instances of offence against woman are on the rise and the courts are expected to be more sensitive towards such kind of offence. Thus taking lenient view would be deleterious to the concept of justice.
This court is of the considered view that since both the rival parties are neighbors, the punishment imposed of one year will lead to the appellant going to jail for another about 9 to 10 months which may intensify the animosity between the rival parties. The jurisprudence of Penology is founded upon the two competing factors of reformation and retribution. No doubt the petitioner deserves severe punishment but considering the factor of maintaining peace in the neighborhood, this court is of the considered view that the period of sentence be reduced to some extent with corresponding increase in the amount of fine.
This approach would not only serve the retributive object of the punishment but would also help in assuaging the grief, embarrassment and misfortune suffered by the victim and her family members. Moreso the appellant shall be afforded opportunity to repent and thereby cleanse his conscience Accordingly, this court by upholding findings of conviction interferes only to the extent of sentence awarded by the appellate court by awarding the following modified sentence which shall run concurrently.
Sr. No. Name of the Conviction Period of Amount of Sentence in
petitioner/ac under sentence fine default
cused Section
4
Ravi Batham Vs. State of M.P.
Cr.R.426.2015
1 Ravi Batham 354 IPC Six months Rs. 35,000/- Six months
s/o Sita Ram RI
2 323 IPC Six months Rs. 15,000/- Six month
RI
The appellant is directed to deposit the additional
amount of fine of Rs. 44,000/- within a period of 40 days from today failing which the petitioner shall undergo further sentence as per default clause.
It is further directed that the amount of fine which is Rs. 50,000/- be paid as compensation to the victim and should be kept in term deposit in the name of the prosecutrix with her mother as the guardian and the prosecutrix shall receive periodical (six monthly) interest for the sake of furtherance of her education. The maturity value of the term deposit shall be paid to the prosecutrix on her attaining the age of majority.
Order of the appellate court dated 5.5. 2015 passed by Vith Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal no. 170/2015 is upheld with the modification in sentence supra The bail bonds of the petitioner stand canceled. The petitioner be taken in custody to suffer remaining part of the reduced jail sentence.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge ar