Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jahid vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 August, 2018
Cr.R. No.3673/2018
2
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
Cr.R No.3673 of 2018
(Jahid S/o Abdul Sattar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)
Indore, Dt.14.08.2018
Shri R.R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the complainant.
Complainant Deepa Bhojwani is also present in person along with her counsel Shri Navendu Joshi.
Head on IA Nos.6003/2018 and 6004/2018, applications for granting leave to compromise and to accept compromise.
Entire record was sent to the Principal Registrar of this Bench for verification of compromise, who after verification submitted his report stating that both the parties are competent to compromise the case in all respect. They have compromised the case voluntarily, without any pressure, threat, corrosion, inducement or undue influence from either side.
The complainant is present before the Court along with his counsel and she has submitted that due to intervention of close relatives and elderly people of the village, they have amicably settled the dispute and now she does not want to prosecute the case as she has no grievance towards the petitioner.
The petitioner is convicted for the commission of the Cr.R. No.3673/2018 2 offence punishable under section 354 and 323 of the IPC. Section 323 of the IPC is compoundable, therefore, leave is granted and compromise is accepted.
Consequently, the impugned order of the learned Trial Court which is upheld by the learned Appellate Court is set aside to the extend it relates to the conviction of the petitioner under section 323 of the IPC. The petitioner is acquitted from the charge under section 323 of the IPC.
So far as the offence under section 354 of the IPC is concerned, the leave cannot be granted as on the date of offence i.e. dated 10.02.2011 offence under section 354 of the IPC was not compoundable as per Section 23 (ii) of Amendment Act No.5 of 2009 w.e.f 31.12.2009, therefore, the compromise filed by the parties is disallowed qua the offence punishable under section 354 of the IPC.
At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not want to press merits of the case, therefore, with the consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally.
This petition is filed under section 397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C by the petitioner, who has been convicted by the learned JMFC, Ratlam in Criminal Case No.3989/2011 vide order dated 06.09.2017 for the offence under section 354, 341 and 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months' R.I., 1 month's R.I. and 1 month's R.I. and fine of Rs.100/-, Rs.200/- and Rs.100/-. The learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 02.07.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.94/2017 Cr.R. No.3673/2018 2 acquitted the petitioner from the charge under Section 341 of the IPC and confirmed the sentence under Sections 354 and 323 of IPC.
Shorts facts of the case is that, on 10.12.2011, at about 9.30 a.m., the prosecutrix went to gym, where the petitioner came and forcibly caught her hand with intent to outrage her modesty. When she shouted, her son and other people came there. Seeing them the accused attacked them also and fled from the spot. On this report, the Police registered Crime No.491/2011 under Sections 341, 354 and 323 of IPC against the accused and after conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Court held the petitioner guilty and sentenced him as stated above.
The petitioner filed appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court, which was rejected by the learned Appellate Court qua the charges under Section 354 & 323 of IPC and partly allowed it qua the charge under Section 341 of IPC.
Out of the offence, he was awarded punishment, the parties compromised the case and the petitioner is acquitted from the charge under section 323 of the IPC as stated above. For rest of the charge i.e. under section 354 of the IPC, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not want to press merits of the case. His prayer is limited to the sentence awarded to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that both the parties are resident of the same village. Elderly people of the village and their relatives mediated the dispute between the Cr.R. No.3673/2018 2 parties and they have amicably settled their dispute. The prosecutrix has filed the compromise, which is also accepted by the Court and only for the technical reasons that compromise could not be accepted with regard to the offence of use of criminal force with intent to outrage modesty of a woman, as it is non-compoundable, the same is not accepted. The incident took place in the year 2011 and since then he is regularly attending the Court and facing the trial and other proceedings. No other criminal case whether prior or after the incident has ever been registered against him.
The incident happened all of a sudden. Actually this was a result of dispute arose due to accident of motorcycle which was given colour of outraging of modesty of the prosecutrix. Petitioner is 35 years old having small children and only breadwinner of his family comprising wife and a minor son depending on him for their livelihood. Due to his incarceration whole family will suffer. No purpose would be achieved by putting him in jail, therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone which is more than a month more precisely 1 month and 12 days till date.
Learned public prosecutor has opposed the prayer but has not controverted the facts mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as averred by the learned counsel for the petitioner coupled with the age of the prosecutrix, nature of the incident and compromise between the parties, in my considered opinion, Cr.R. No.3673/2018 2 ends of justice would be sub-served by reducing the sentence of the petitioner to the period already undergone.
Consequently, the petition is partly allowed. Conviction of the petitioner under section 354 of the IPC is maintained. So far as his sentence is concerned, he is awarded rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone along with fine imposed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court.
He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
With the aforesaid, the present petition stands partly allowed and disposed off.
(Virender Singh) Judge ns Digitally signed by Neeraj Sarvate Date: 2018.08.15 12:12:02 +05'30'