Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bagh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 February, 2019
1 CRR-6304-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRR-6304-2018
(BAGH SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
2
Jabalpur, Dated : 15-02-2019
Shri Chimanlal Sethi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned PL for the respondent/State.
Record of the lower court has been received.
Today this case is listed for admission as well as hearing on IA No.22567/2018, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the applicant.
This criminal revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the judgment dated 28/12/2018 passed by 1 st Additional Session Judge, Khandwa, in Criminal Appeal No. 153/2017 confirming the judgment dated 23/08/2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Punasa District Khandwa in Criminal Case No.680/2016, whereby the applicant was convicted under section 451, 354, 354A of the IPC and sentenced to R.I for 1 year, R.I for 1 year, and R.I for 1 year with fine amount of Rs.200/- on each count, with stipulation clause as mentioned in the impugned judgment.
In brief the prosecution case is that on 06/10/2014 about 7 PM, the prosecutrix (PW-2) was at her home whereby one month before her husband died, the applicant came at her house and showing currency note asked her how much money should she requires and caught hold her hand with bad intention. When she cried and get rid from the applicant and came out of the house, the applicant followed her and threatened that if she made noise and narrated the incident to anybody, he would kill her. On the next day, when her brother Anil came, she went to lodge the FIR at police station Jamkota, where Crime No. 285/2014 under section 354, 354A, 456, 506 Part-II of the IPC was registered and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the applicant before the JMFC, Punasa District Khandwa where charges of the aforesaid offences were framed. The applicant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. His defence was that he has been falsely implicated. After completion of the trial, the applicant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned earlier and his appeal was also dismissed by the 1 st Additional Session Judge, Khandwa. Hence this revision.
2 CRR-6304-2018 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the findings of the both court below are contrary to law. There is no evidence to prove the fact that the applicant caught hold hand of the prosecutrix with intention to outrage her modesty and the act does not come under the purview of criminal assault with intention to outrage her modesty and hardly the case of criminal assault is made out against the applicant and the applicant is first offender and he is entitled to get benefit of probation. Hence this criminal revision.
Learned PL opposed the aforesaid contention and supported the concurrent finding of both courts below and prayed for rejection of the criminal revision.
Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the applicant and on perusal of the record, it appears that the learned JMFC and Session Court concurrently recorded the finding that statement of the prosecutrix (PW-2) is reliable and supported by FIR Ex.P-1 and also got corroboration from the statement of her daughter Sonam (PW-1), who was also present at the time of the incident and found that the prosecution has established the fact that the applicant entered into the house of the prosecutrix and shown currency note and asked her for sexual favour and caught hold her hand with bad intention and also threatened her that if she tried to make noise or disclose the fact to anybody he would kill her.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant that there is no evidence to prove the fact that the applicant made any criminal assault and the same was with intention to outrage her modesty, has not been proved and it is contrary to the record have no substance. As the act of caught holding o f hand of the prosecutrix in the aforesaid circumstance establishes the fact that t he applicant assaulted the prosecutrix with intention to outrage her modesty. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of Kerala High Court passed in Criminal M.C No. 834/2014 (Durga Prasad & ors Vs. State of Kerala), but the facts of the case are totally different and it is the case of section 353 of the IPC in which quarrel between the government servant and accused persons taken place. Learned counsel for the applicant further placed reliance on the judgment of the Patna High Court in the case o f S.P Mallik Vs. State of Orissa passed on 14 May, 1981 reported in 1982 Cr.L.J 1981 . The facts of this case are also totally different. The prosecutrix was sleeping in the bus while travelling and it is alleged that the applicant touched her belly. It was held that the use of force will become criminal when it is done against the consent of any person with the intention of committing an offence or to cause 3 CRR-6304-2018 injury, fear or annoyance to any person. In this case admittedly no assault was resorted to . The fact of the present case is totally different. Hence it can’t be said that in the present case the applicant had no intention to outrage modesty of the prosecutrix by showing currency note and asking how much money she requires and caught hold of her hand and on making of screaming left the prosecutrix. In absence of other circumstance, it is clear cut establishment of the fact that the applicant had intention to outrage modesty of the prosecutrix. With the aforesaid intention he by caught holding the hand assaulted the prosecutrix and also establishes that he sought sexual favour from the prosecutrix. Therefore, prima facie this Court does not find any infirmity, illegality, impropriety or error of jurisdiction in the impugned judgment.
So far the sentence part is concerned, when there is minimum sentence is prescribed, less than minimum sentence can not be awarded. Therefore, on that account also, no interference is warranted.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision has no substance. Hence it is dismissed.
A copy of this order be sent to the jail authorities and trial court concerned along with the record for information and necessary action.
Certified copy as per rules.
(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE Digitally signed by TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE TARUN tarun DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, KUMAR postalCode=482002, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=19a265290eb7f630 7d4a64122959af56e05e3d1 SALUN d609e0fd1051d7f6331251f9 9, serialNumber=0e7afab970b 523fc5e1fd370da00347dabf KE a96b26cbffd08773a847c03d 3115c, cn=TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Date: 2019.02.15 18:20:12 +05'30'