IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5450 of 2024 ANIL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Rakesh Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner.

HEARD ON : 14.01.2026 POSTED ON : 18.02.2026 ORDER This Criminal Revision under Section 438 r/w 442 of the BNSS, 2023 is preferred being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.10.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.177/2024 by the Fourth Additional Session Judge, Ujjain arising out of judgment dated 26.07.2024 in RCT No.217/2018 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain arising out of Crime No.913/2017 registered at Police Station Neelganga, Ujjain whereby the revision petitioner has been convicted under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced to Rs.1,000/- fine with default stipulation of 7 days imprisonment.

02. The revision petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for using criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of prosecutrix (PW-1) at

10:30 PM of 26.12.2017.

03. Considering the statements of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and Sub-

Inspector Seema Sharma (PW-4), the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 354 of the IPC does not warrant interference. The hostility of Nandkishore (PW-2) and Aasha Bai (PW-3) does not affect the credibility of the prosecutrix’s testimony. Accordingly, the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 354 of the IPC is affirmed.

Now come to the question of sentence.

04. The prosecutrix (PW-1) and revision petitioner were entered into the compromise before the trial Court on 28.05.2024. The trial Court accepted the compromise regarding the offence under Section 506-II of the IPC, but did not consider the compromise regarding the offence under Section 354 of the IPC being non-compoundable. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not taken into consideration the above factum of compromise while awarding the sentence. Presently, the revision petitioner is in custody since 09.01.2026. The sentence under Section 354 of the IPC shall not be less than 1 year, which may extend to 5 years and shall also be liable to fine.

05. Short sentence serves no purpose as the revision petitioner is undergoing incarceration since 09.01.2026 and he has no criminal antecedents. Keeping the revision petitioner in jail will protect the society only for a period of approximately 10 months whereas the provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 will protect the society for a period of 3 years and will provide an opportunity to the petitioner to live a dignified life. Therefore, in the light of Mukesh vs. State of M.P - 2016 (3) MPWN 274, Lakhanlal @ Lakhan Singh vs. State of M.P - 2019 (2) JLJ 457, and considering the compromise, nature of offence and circumstances of the case and revision petitioner/ accused being first offender it is a fit case where the benefits of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended to revision petitioner- Anil S/o Hazarilal Verma.

06. Therefore, instead of continuing the revision petitioner/accused to undergo remaining jail imprisonment, it is directed that he shall be released under the provision of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on probation of good conduct for a period of three years subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) to the effect that he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour during the said period of three years and shall appear to receive sentence when called upon by the Court.

08. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the prosecutrix for information.

09. In view of the aforesaid, criminal revision is partly allowed and disposed off.

10. Record of the trial court be remitted back.

C.C. as per rules.

(GAJENDRA SINGH)

JUDGE VS