Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Prasad Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2012
Author: A.K. Shrivastava
Bench: A.K. Shrivastava
CRA No.2201/1999
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH:
Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2201/1999
.........Appellant: Mahesh Prasad s/o Chudamani Soni,
aged about 21 years, R/o village
Hardova, P.S. Antarala, District Rewa
(M.P.)
Versus
.......Respondent : State of Madhya Pradesh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for the appellant.
Shri Rakesh Kumar Kesharwani, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 12th day of March, 2012) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.8.1999 passed by learned Special Judge, Rewa in Special Criminal Case No.4/1999 convicting the appellant under Section 354 and 457 IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer jail sentence of 6 months each and fine Rs.500/- each; in default further R.I. for one month each, the appellant has knocked CRA No.2201/1999 2 the doors of this Court by preferring this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix on 29.5.1997 lodged First Information Report against the appellant that in the night of 28.5.1997 when she was sleeping in the open courtyard of her house at that juncture appellant came and caught hold of her leg. When she was awakened, appellant told not to shriek and tried to outrage her modesty, as a result of which this lady screamed and on hearing her shriek her father-in-law Ramnath who was sleeping at the door came there and on seeing him appellant ran away after jumping over the fencing (Pagra).
3. The case was registered under Section 354 and 457 IPC and also under Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the SC/ST Act").
4. After the investigation was over a charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of learned Special Judge, who framed the charges punishable under Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the SC/ST Act and also framed the charges punishable under Section 354 and 457 IPC, which the appellant denied and requested for the trial.
5. The prosecution thereafter examined its witnesses and also proved certain documents. The learned Special Judge did not find the charge under Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the SC/ST Act to be CRA No.2201/1999 3 proved and eventually acquitted him from the said charge. However, charges under Section 354 and 457 IPC were found to be proved and eventually, the appellant has been convicted to undergo the sentence which I have mentioned herein-above.
6. In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing his judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
7. In this appeal none is appearing on behalf of the appellant. However, I have gone through the record and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed in part.
8. On bare perusal of the testimony of the prosecutrix it is gathered that in the late night at 12:00 appellant entered into her house and caught hold of her hand and when she snatched her hand, appellant disclosed his identity. Specifically this witness has put her inability that why appellant caught hold of her hand, but, thereafter, after changing her version she states that in order to outrage her modesty, the appellant caught hold of her hands. When her father-in-law arrived there, she narrated that appellant had caught hold of her hand, to him also. Thereafter, her father-in-law caught hold of the appellant, but, anyhow the appellant got himself released from the grip of her father-in-law. In cross-examination by changing her version the prosecutrix is saying that appellant caught CRA No.2201/1999 4 hold of her leg.
9. On going through the testimony of Ramnath (PW-2) who is father-in-law of the prosecutrix, this Court finds that on hearing the shriek of her daughter-in-law, he came at the place where she was sleeping and found that appellant hugged her and was trying to outrage her modesty, but, this type of evidence is totally lacking from the testimony of the prosecutrix. Nowhere she has stated that appellant hugged her, although this witness is saying that he caught hold of the appellant but it is material improvement because this fact did not find place in her case diary statement Ex.D-1. The evidence of the prosecutrix, so as to bring the case of appellant within the purview of Section 354 IPC is also not firm because at one place she is saying that why appellant caught hold of her hands she cannot say but at the same time she is also saying that to outrage her modesty the appellant caught hold of her. The case of the prosecution is that appellant caught hold of the legs of the prosecutrix and therefore, according to me there is no firm and cogent evidence in order to convict the appellant under Section 354 IPC. Hence, he is acquitted from the charge under Section 354 IPC.
10. However, on going through the testimony of the prosecutrix as well as that of Ramnath (PW-2) it is gathered that appellant has committed the offence under Section 457 IPC. Hence, his conviction under this Section is hereby affirmed and he is hereby CRA No.2201/1999 5 directed to suffer imprisonment which he had already undergone.
11. On going through the judgment of learned Trial Court it is gathered that appellant was convicted on 6th August, 1999 and he was enlarged on bail on 25.8.1999. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged.
12. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds in part. The conviction of the appellant under Section 354 IPC is hereby set aside and he is acquitted from the said charge. The amount of fine, if deposited, be refunded to him. However, his conviction under Section 457 IPC is hereby maintained and he is released for the period he had already undergone.
(A.K. Shrivastava) Judge 12-03-2012.
S/