Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nandilal Paatel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7955
1 CRA-2299-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 28 th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2299 of 2012
NANDILAL PAATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
None for the appellant.
Shri Anil Upadhyay - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
As none is appearing on behalf of appellant, Shri Sahil Singh - Advocate is appointed as amicus curiae to argue on behalf of present appellant.
This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.09.2012 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST, Jabalpur (M.P.) in Special Criminal Case No.79/2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 456, 354, 323 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.1000/-; R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.500/-; and R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulations.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 23.06.2011, the prosecutrix was alone in the house with her younger son. At half past six, the prosecutrix had eaten dinner and was sleeping in the shade of the house with her son Rupesh. Then at one past one in the night, a person came and pressed her mouth. Her breathing stopped and she woke up. She saw that it was Nandilal Patel from the village who was pressing her mouth. He said, don't make noise otherwise I will kill you, today Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 30-01-2026 13:40:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7955 2 CRA-2299-2012 I have got a chance, I will have sex with you. Thereafter, he held both her breasts with his hands and bit her on the left cheek. She was trying to free herself from Nandilal and said, run away from here, otherwise I will shout. Then Nandilal left her and said, don't tell this to anyone, if you tell, I will kill you and your husband. Knowing that the prosecutrix was a Gaud tribal, the accused, intent on disgracing her, entered her home from her side at night, pressed her breast, and insisted on having sex. There are bite marks on her left breast and left cheek. Her husband was at work at the time of the incident. When he returned, he recounted the entire incident and informed his neighbor, Sonalal Patel. The next morning, the complainant filed a report at the Sihora police station, which Assistant Sub- Inspector Jagjahir Chaudhary (PW-6) registered as Ex.P.1. Since the case was a crime under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the case diary was given to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDOP) for investigation. The investigating officer sent the complainant to the Community Health Center in Sihora for an examination of her injuries. The S.D.O.P. Suryakant Sharma went to the spot and prepared the scene map (Ex.P.2), took statements of witnesses, obtained the caste certificate of the prosecutrix from Sarpanch Sonalal (PW-4) which is Ex.P/4, recorded statements of witnesses.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the competent court.
4. The learned trial Judge on going through the evidence available in the charge sheet framed charge against appellant for the offence punishable under Section 456, 354, 323 of IPC and Section 3(1)(11) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, which they denied and claimed for the trial.
5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 06 witnesses, namely, prosecutrix (PW-1), Sitaram Gaud (PW-2), Sonelal (PW-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 30-01-2026 13:40:42NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7955 3 CRA-2299-2012
3), Lakhanlal (PW-4) Dr. Smt S. Palod (PW-5) and Jagjahir singh (PW-6) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/6 the documents on record.
6. The accused abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. The defence of accused is of false implication. The accused has examined Rewa Yadav as DW-1 in his defence.
7. The learned trial Judge after appreciating and marshalling the evidence has acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 3(1)(11) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and convicted him under Sections 456, 354 and 323 of IPC. The learned Trial Court has sentenced the accused as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by appellant.
8. At the outset it is submitted that by the learned counsel for the appellant that he is not pressing the appeal on merits and pressing it only on the point of sentence. As regards sentence, It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that present appellant was 41 years of age at the time of commission of offence. It is also submitted that the incident is of the year 2011 and since then he is facing the agony of trial. There was no minimum sentence prescribed for the alleged offences in the year 2011. It is further submitted that he remained in custody for 18 days as per certificate under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. prepared by the learned Trial Court. He is the first offender having no criminal antecedents. He remained cooperative during the trial and before this Court. Therefore, it is prayed that sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone while enhancing the fine amount suitably.
9. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment but he has no objection on deciding the appeal on the point of sentence.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 30-01-2026 13:40:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7955 4 CRA-2299-2012 record, it is found that trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 456, 354 and 323 of IPC. Therefore, findings of conviction for the alleged offence under Sections 456, 354 and 323 are upheld.
12. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case; evidence on record; taking into account the age of accused/ appellant who was 41 years of age at the time of commission of offence; appellant has suffered 18 days incarceration as per certificate under Section 428 of Cr.P.C; contention of the counsel that accused/appellant is the first offender and has no criminal antecedents; he has been facing agony of trial since 2011 and he was on bail during the trial and the pendency of this appeal but he never misused the liberty so granted, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would meet if while reducing the jail sentence of appellant to the period already undergone by him, the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section 456 of IPC and fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.2500/- each for the offence under Sections 354 and 323 of IPC.
1 3 . Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of the appellant under Sections 456, 354 and 323 of IPC, jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him and fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section 456 of IPC and fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.2500/- each for the offence under Sections 354 and 323 of IPC, which shall be deposited by him within a period of 60 days from today. The fine amount, if any already deposited by the appellant be adjusted against the aforesaid amount of fine. The entire amount of fine be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 30-01-2026 13:40:42NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7955 5 CRA-2299-2012
14. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Court is not deposited within a period of 60 days from today, he would surrender himself to serve the entire jail sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.
15. The order of the Trial Court pertaining to disposal of the property is hereby affirmed.
16. Let record of the Trial Court along with copy of this order be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
17. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE DV Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 30-01-2026 13:40:42