CRA/6140/2018 of LAKHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023

JUDGEMENT

This Criminal appeal has been filed under section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

being aggrieved by judgement dated 07.08.2018 passed by the 1[st] AdditionalSessions Judge in the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh(Biaora) (M.P.) in S.T. No.122/2017 whereby the appellant/accused had beenconvicted under section 352 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 months ofsimple imprisonment.

2. Brief facts of the case is that appellant/accused was prosecutedregarding incident dated 15.02.2018 at 9 a.m. in village Kherchakhedi, Police

Station Leemachouhan District Rajgarh (Biaora) at Govt. hand pump victim(P.W.-1) regarding which crime no.37/2017 was registered at Police StationLeemachouhan District Rajgarh (Biaora).

3. This appeal has been preferred challenging the conviction and sentenceon the ground that independent witness of the case did not supports the case ofthe prosecution and the testimony of the victim (P.W.-1) is full ofcontradictions. The trial Court has ignored various contradictions in thestatement of the witnesses and the trial court has committed error in not grantingthe benefit of Probation of Offender Act, 1958 to the appellant/accused andignored non-compliance of section 157 of the Cr.P.C.

4. Counsel for the respondent/State has supported the conviction andsentence.

5. Heard Shri A.S. Parihar, advocate appointed through Legal Aid andperused the record.

6. The trial court has meticulously discussed the testimony ofprosecutrix/victim (P.W.-1) and her mother (P.W.-2). The finding of the trialcourt in paragraph 18 of the Judgment regarding conviction under section 352of the IPC are recorded appreciating the testimony of all the prosecutionwitnesses. The trial Court had acquitted the appellant/accused from rest of thecharges does not automatically results from the offences that stand provedfrom the testimony of victim/prosecutrix (P.W.-1) and her mother (P.W.-2)hence, the conviction of the appellant/accused under section 352 of the IPC isaffirmed.

7. Short sentence does not prove any purpose. Coloumn No.12 f thearrest memo of the appellant/accused (Exhibit-P/6) clearly indicates thatappellant/accused has no criminal antecedents. Thus, it is a fit case to grant the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

8. There is no criminal antecedents of the appellant/accused. He is facingthe trial from 2017. Looking to the nature of the incident & having regard to thefacts and circumstances of the case and the character of appellant/accused asfirst offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct undersection 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

8 . The appeal is partly allowed and the finding of the trial courtregarding the sentence is modified and instead of sentencing theappellant/accused at once it is directed that appellant/accused be released onbail entering into bond with surety of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) to the satisfaction of the trial court within a period of 90 days to appearand receive sentence when called upon by the trial Court during a period of 3years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior.

9. Under Section 5 of Probation Of Offenders Act, 1958 theappellant/accused shall also pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) tothe prosecutrix/victim (P.W.-1) as compensation for the injury suffered for thecommission of offence. The appellant/accused shall deposit the compensationamount within 90 days failing which the said amount shall be recovered fromappellant/accused in accordance with law. The amount of fine deposited by theappellant/accused before the trial court shall be adjusted towards in amount ofcompensation.

10. With the aforesaid, the criminal appeal is disposed off.

(GAJENDRA SINGH)JUDGE