IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J.
Damodar alias Damol S/o Prabhu Lal – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh Incharge Police Station P.S. Fatehgarh (Madhya Pradesh) – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 901 of 2022
Decided On : 11-05-2022
Criminal Revision - Conviction under Section 354 of IPC - [Section 354 of IPC] - The court affirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Section 354 of IPC but set aside the original sentence, sentencing the petitioner to the period already undergone in jail and enhancing the fine amount to Rs. 5000. The enhanced fine amount is to be paid to the victim/prosecutrix as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix lodged an FIR alleging that the petitioner, along with two others, committed the offence under Section 354 of IPC by pressing her breast. The trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner, and the Appellate Court upheld the conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner did not raise any legal ground to point out the illegality committed by the Court below in convicting and sentencing him. The Court also rejected the prayer for releasing the petitioner on probation, citing the severity of the offence under Section 354 of IPC.
Issues: The issues involved the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner under Section 354 of IPC, as well as the prayer for releasing the petitioner on probation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the severity of the offence under Section 354 of IPC and the legal principle that benefit of probation is not available to persons convicted of this offence. The Court also considered the petitioner's time served in custody and enhanced the fine amount as compensation to the victim/prosecutrix.
Final Decision: The criminal revision was partly allowed, affirming the petitioner's conviction under Section 354 of IPC but setting aside the original sentence. The petitioner was sentenced to the period already undergone in jail and the fine amount was enhanced to Rs. 5000. The enhanced fine amount is to be paid to the victim/prosecutrix as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. On deposit of the enhanced fine amount, the petitioner is to be released forthwith.
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 19.01.2022 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Appeal No.500089/2016, by which his appeal has been dismissed and the Appellate Court maintained the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna in Criminal Case No. 2311/2011, by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/-.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that on 28.09.2011 at 12.30 PM prosecutrix, a married lady, aged about 35 years lodged an FIR against petitioner and two others at Police Station Fatehgarh, District Guna alleging that on the date of incident on 27.09.2011 in the evening at 7.00 PM she was returning from market. On the way she met accused Nandlal and petitioner Damodar on one motorcycle and on another motorcycle co-accused Man Singh. Man Singh told her that he is going to Badhuria and will drop her at her house. On his invitation she sat on his motorcycle. All of them stopped in Badhuria crossing and thereafter accused Man Singh with bad intention caught hold of her hand. When she objected, another accused Nandlal with bad intention caught hold of her another hand. Thereafter petitioner Damodar pressed her breast. She cried and after leaving them ran away. Her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) came there and on seeing her they started abusing her with filthy language and threatened her by saying that if you lodge report she will be killed. Thereafter along with her sister-in-law she came to her house and narrated the story to her husband and lodged report. On her report, crime under the aforesaid offence was registered. She was sent for medical examination. No external injury was found. Accused persons were arrested. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed.
3. Learned trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner along with accused Man Singh for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. His appeal was dismissed by Appellate Court. After dismissal of appeal, petitioner has surrendered on 3.3.2022 and since then he is in jail custody.
4. Aggrieved by aforesaid conviction and sentence of Court below the petitioner has filed this revision on the ground that on the basis of contradictory evidence, Court below erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner.
5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
6. After perusing the record, it is apparent that the counsel for the petitioner has not raised any legal ground in the revision to point out as to what illegality has been committed by the Court below in convicting and sentencing the petitioner.
7. The Apex Court in the case of Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration reported in (1975) 4 SCC 649 has held that, the jurisdiction of High Court in a criminal revision application is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of the evidence. The said judgment has been relied by the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and Others reported in (2004) 7 SCC 659).
8. In the opinion of this Court, the Court below has dealt with every aspect of the matter and, therefore, the decision making process adopted by the Court below cannot be found fault with and no illegality has been committed in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere in the matter.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is the first offender and he should be released on probation.
10. Hon. Apex Court in the case of Ajahar Ali Vs. State of West Bengal, (2013) 10 SCC 31 has held that benefit of probation is not available to the persons convicted of offence under section 354 of the I.P.C. as the offence relating to modesty of a woman cannot
Ajahar Ali Vs. State of West Bengal
Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration reported in (1975) 4 SCC 649
State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and Others reported in (2004) 7 SCC 659
The judgment underscores the importance of corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases and the principle of proportionality in sentencing.
Court can modify sentences and impose compensation over prison terms in light of circumstances.
The conviction under Section 354 I.P.C was upheld while the sentence was reduced from two years to one year due to elapsed time and other mitigating factors.
The appellate court's power to modify sentences must be measured by the power of the court from whose judgment an appeal has been brought before it, and the fine imposed should not exceed the jurisdi....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.