IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH

ON THE 6^th OF JANUARY, 2026

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 712 of 2009

NARENDRA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Appearance:

Shri Kamlesh Yadav - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Pankaj Raj- Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

ORDER IPC but convicted the accused under Section 323 and 354 of IPC and punished him under Section 323 IPC with six months R.I. and fine of Rs.200/- and under Section 354 of IPC with one year R.I. and fine of Rs.300/- with default stipulation.

This Criminal Revision was admitted on 04.06.2009.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the both the parties

matter is heard finally.

2.This appeal has been filed being aggrieved of the judgment

dated 23.03.2009 passed by Additional Session Judge, Hoshangabad (Narmadapuram) in Criminal Appeal No.165/2008 whereby the learned

appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence.

3. The learned JMFC, Itarsi vide judgement dated 18.09.2008

passed in Criminal Case No.235/2007 found that allegations were established against the accused under Sections 341, 294, 323 and 354 of IPC for obstructing the way of the prosecutrix, using criminal force on her with intent to outrage her modesty, and hurling obscene words at her. The learned trial acquitted the accused under Section 341, 294 of

4. At the time of argument, learned counsel for the applicant submits that although appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence, he is not pressing his appeal against the conviction, but the sentence may be reduced to the period of custody already undergone by the applicant.

5. Shri Pankaj Raj learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has no objection if the conviction of the appellant is maintained and sentence is reduced. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State further submitted that as per report vide No.5055 letter dated 11.12.2025 received from Central Jail, Narmadapuram, the applicant (Narendra S/o of Ramdayal) in Criminal remain in custody from 23.03.2009 to

06.06.2009.

6. Considered the statement of prosecution witnesses PW/1-

Prosecutrix, PW/2-Prosecutrix's sister, PW/3 Shyam Sunder (Head Constable), PW/4, R.B. Shriwas, Police Officer also statement of the accused and it is seen that judgment of conviction is well justified. 7. After rejection of the appeal, it is seen that accused was sent to the jail on 23.03.2009 and his suspension was allowed by this court on

04.06.2009.

8. On perusal of the statement, it is seen that more evidence is regarding the assaulting part, as the trial court has itself acquitted the accused/applicant under Sections 341 and 294 of the IPC,which clearly indicates that the right of way of the prosecutrix was not obstructed and that no obscene words were hurled at her. The conviction and sentence under Section 323 of the IPC further suggest that the primary intention of the accused was to give a beating to the prosecutrix for the dispute between them as the accused stated in his examination under Section

313 of the Cr.P.C. that he has been falsely implicated in the case.

9. In the considered view of this court in the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above and looking to the old pendency of this appeal, the sentence can be reduced. In an offence under Section 354 of IPC there is no minimum sentence on the day of offence i.e.09.03.2007. The law as stood on on that day regarding punishment was under Section 354 of IPC imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to two years or with fine or with both. Accordingly, revision is partly allowed.

10. Thus, the appellant is convicted under Sections 354 and 323 of the IPC and is sentenced to the period already undergone. Further, the fine imposed under Section 323 of the IPC is enhanced from Rs. 200/‑ to Rs. 1,000/‑ on each count and fine imposed under Section 354 of IPC is raised from 300/- to Rs1000/-. The additional amount of Rs.800/‑ shall be deposited within a period of 15 days from today.