CRIMINAL APPEAL 53/2009 on 3 September 2009

ORDER

This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant/accused against theimpugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.07.2010passed by Special Judge (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (preventionof Atrocities) Act, 1989) District Mandla in Special Case No.53/2009, wherebythe learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant for commission ofoffence under Sections 354 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for sixmonths with fine Rs.600/- with default stipulations.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that incident took place on

03.09.2009 at 1:30 PM in the afternoon. The complainant was said to be alonein her house and the accused/appellant came to her house and asked whereabout of her husband and children. When the appellant found that thecomplainant was alone in her house, he caught hold of her hand and tired to pullher. The complainant freed herself and came out and raised alarm. The appellantwas tried under Section 354, and 506 of IPC and 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act but thetrial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 354 of IPC only.

3 . As per the evidence and the material adduced on behalf of theprosecution, the Trial Court found the offence to be proved for offences asmentioned in para-1 above.

4. This Court has gone through the entire evidence adduced on behalf ofthe prosecution. The prosecution has examined PW/1- complainant, PW/2-Shyam bati PW/3-Santosh, PW/4-Rahuwar and other witnesses.

5. After having perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it isfound that the findings recorded by the Trial Court upholding the guilt of theaccused-appellant are impeccable and the prosecution has succeeded in provingthe case against the accused-appellants. There is nothing in cross examinationof the witnesses that may demolish the prosecution case. Thus, there is nothingin the said findings of the trial court that can be said to be erroneous orperverse, warranting interference by this Court in Appellate jurisdiction.

6. Thus, the conviction of the appellant as ordered by the trial court ishereby upheld.

7. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances that deserve to betaken in consideration so far as the sentence part is concerned. The appellant isthe first offender and incident took place in the year 2009 and accused/appellanthas faced trial and this appeal is pending since 2010, the accused/appellant has been under trial or appearing before the Court as condition to suspension ofsentence since long. Nothing has come on record regarding misuse ofconditions of bail/suspension of sentence during the long period since theprosecution, trial and appeal are pending. Thus, this Court deems it fit to reducethe sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone by appellant i.e aperiod of four days and to enhance the fine amount to Rs. 7,500/-.

8. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugnedconviction is maintained. However, the appellant/accused is sentenced toundergo imprisonment for the period he has already undergone by appellant fora period of four days subject to depositing the further fine amount of Rs.7,500/-by the appellant within a period of three months from today.

9. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Court is

not deposited within a period of three months from today, then the originalsentence would come into operation and appellants shall be taken into custodyor he would surrender himself to serve the entire jail sentence of three months asawarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.

10. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.

11. The bail bonds of the appellants/accused, if any, are discharged.

12. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court recordalongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for informationand necessary compliance.

13. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed anddisposed of.