Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Patle vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2012
Author: Tarun Kumar Kaushal
Bench: Tarun Kumar Kaushal
1
Cr.A. No.335 of 2008
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
BEFORE : TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL, J.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 335 OF 2008
APPELLANT: Santosh Patle,
S/o Dasharam Patle,
aged about 30 years,
R/o Village- Bamhani,
P.S. Garmin Navegaon,
Tehsil & District- Balaghat (M.P.)
Versus
RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh
******************************************************************
For appellant : Shri Pradeep Naveriya, Advocate.
For Respondent : Shri Sudesh Verma, Govt. Advocate
******************************************************************
JUDGMENT
08/05/2012 This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 21/01/2008 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Balaghat in Special Case No. 01/2007 convicting the appellant under section 354, 457 and 506-II, IPC and sentenced him to 6 months R.I, 1 year R.I and 6 months R.I and fine of Rs.500/- on each count.
2. Facts of the case in short are that on 28/01/2007 in mid night while prosecutrix aged 19 years (PW-4) was sleeping in the house on a cot with her grand-mother, appellant entered in the house and touched her face and subjected her to indecent assault. Prosecutrix (PW-4) tried to run away, but appellant forced her to stop and threatened her that if she tells this incident to anybody, she will face the consequences. Prosecutrix (PW-4) somehow managed to run away. Appellant also ran out of the house leaving his chappals there.
3. Prosecutrix submitted a written report Ex.P-3 at Police Station Navegaon. FIR Ex.P-4 was registered at Crime No. 10/2007 against the appellant under section 354, 452, 506 IPC 2 Cr.A. No.335 of 2008 and 3(1)(xi) The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short SC/ST Act). Prosecutrix was sent to District Hospital, Balaghat for medical examination. Police prepared Spot Map. Appellant was arrested on 01/02/2007. After completing investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellant.
4. Trial Court framed charges under section 457, 354, 506-II of IPC and under section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act. Appellant abjured guilt. To substantiate case of the prosecution, statements of Chetandas Mahar, uncle of the prosecutrix (PW-1), Bhojraj, neighbour of the prosecutrix (PW-2), Sanjay Kumar, CSP (PW-3), prosecutrix, aged 19 years (PW-4), Surendra, neighbour of the prosecutrix (PW-5), Babulal Paradhi (PW-6), Sanjay Singh Bais, Sub Inspector (PW-7), Dhaneswari Bai (PW-8), and Ravish (PW-9) were recorded. Defence of the appellant in trial court was that of false implication on account of enmity. In support of the defence, statements of Jhanaklal, Panchayat Sachiv (DW-1) and Sharda Prasad Pawar, Panch (DW-2) were recorded.
5. After appreciating aforesaid evidence, appellant was acquitted of the charge under section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act. However, appellant was convicted and sentenced as above.
6. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper. Evidence of the prosecution witnesses are suffering from contradictions and omissions. Conviction is bad in law and sentence is harsh. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate supported the findings of conviction and sentence both.
7. On perusal of evidence of prosecutrix (PW-4), it is revealed that at about 2.00 AM in the night, appellant entered in her house where she was sleeping on a cot. Appellant touched and pressed her face. She switched on the light. She identified appellant properly. Appellant forced her to lay down on the cot and touched her breast. She offered resistance and tried to run 3 Cr.A. No.335 of 2008 away. Appellant threatened her not to tell the incident to anybody. FIR Ex.P-3 was lodged by her after 4 days. Fact of touching her body and pressing her face etc and use of force and threaten have come in the report Ex.P-3 also. In respect of aforesaid there appears no material contradiction and omissions in the evidence of PW-4. Her evidence is corroborated on material particulars by the evidence of other witnesses i.e Chetandas Mahar (PW-1), Bhojraj (PW-2), Surendra (PW-5), Dhaneswari Bai (PW-8), and Ravish (PW-9).
8. As compared to aforesaid prosecution witnesses, statements of Jhanaklal (DW-1) and Sharda Prasad Pawar (DW-2) do not seem to be reliable and convincing. Fact of alibi of the appellant has not been established on the basis of aforesaid defence evidence. I see no perversity in appreciation of evidence done by the Trial Court. Accordingly, there appears no reason to interfere with the finding of conviction.
9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that pending investigation, appellant had suffered 4 days custody period from 01/02/2007 to 05/02/2007. Further submitted that no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant back to jail .
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, undergone period of 4 days seems to be just, proper and sufficient, but fine amount required to be enhanced. For offence under section 354 IPC in addition to 4 days undergone jail sentence, fine of Rs.2000/- and for offence under section 457 IPC again in addition to undergone jail sentence, fine of Rs.2000/- seem to be sufficient and will meet the ends of justice. For offence under section 506-II IPC fine sentence is maintained.
11. As discussed above, this appeal is allowed in part on the point of sentence only. For offence under section 354, 457, 506- II IPC, appellant is sentenced to 4 days undergone jail sentence 4 Cr.A. No.335 of 2008 and fine of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.2000/- and Rs.500/- respectively. In default of payment of fine the appellant shall undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.
12. Appellant is directed to remain present before the trial court on or before 16th July, 2012 to deposit the balance fine amount or to undergo default sentence as the case may be.
13. Trial court has awarded Rs.1000/- compensation to the prosecutrix, now this compensation is also enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.4000/-. The prosecutrix will receive the compensation of Rs.4000/-.
Appeal is allowed in part.
(Tarun Kumar Kaushal) Judge tarun/