Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/971/2014 of KITTU @ KETAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRAON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 971 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
KITTU @ KETAR S/O BALKISHAN PRAJAPATI, AGEDABOUT 27 YEARS, VILL. TEVERIYA P.S. GAUSABAD(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(NEERAJ PATHAK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER .)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH POLICE STATIONGAUSABAD DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY P.L. APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATEGENERAL.)
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed beingaggrieved with the Judgment and sentence of conviction passed by the SpecialJudge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989, Damoh, dated 12.3.2014, in Special CaseNo.19/2011, by which the appellant has been convicted for the offencepunishable under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to six months R.I. with thefine amount of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulations.
2. The prosecution case before the trail court was that on 6.2.1999, thevictim was fetching water from the well of Charan Prajapati at 12:00 p.m.. Thenthe appellant reached there and caught hold of her hand and pressed her breasts and abused her. On that, the victim started abusing him and after returning fromthe well narrated the story to her husband and on that basis FIR No.11/11 wasregistered at P.S. Gaisabad, District Damoh under Sections 354/323 IPC and3(1)(XI) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989.
3. After trial, the trial court had acquitted the appellant for the offencepunishable under Section 3(1)(XI) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989, butconvicted under Section 354 of IPC, and sentenced as above.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the case is of year
2011. At that time no minimum sentence was prescribed for the offencepunishable under Section 354 of IPC, and in the same way, the trial court hassentenced to only six months R.I. This sentence be reduced to the periodalready undergone. Hence conviction be maintained and sentence be reducedto the period already undergone.
5. Learned counsel for the State has argued that if the conviction ismaintained and fine is enhanced, she has no objection for reducing the jailsentence already undergone.
6. Perused the record. Considered on the point of sentence. Beforethe Criminal Amendment Act, 2013, the jail sentence was not compulsory forthe offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, and the trial court itself hassentenced the appellant for the six months R.I.
7. Looking to the fact, the age of the victim and the age of theappellant, time gap and the circumstances under which the offence wascommitted, the jail sentence of the appellant under Section 354 of IPC isreduced to the period already undergone. The fine amount is enhanced fromRs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) to Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand). The appellant shall deposit the enhanced fine amount within aperiod of three months from the date of receipt of the order passed by thisCourt before the learned Trial Court below. In default of payment of fineamount, the appellant shall undergo S.I. for four months.
8. On fine being deposited, the victim shall be paid Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) as compensation under Section 457 of Cr.P.C.
9. The record of the trial court along with the copy of the Order passed by this Court be returned back to the trial court.
10. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are hereby discharged.
1 1 . With the aforesaid observations, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
ndDigitally signed by NIDHI DAVE Date: 2023.12.30 10:22:15 -08'00'
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)JUDGE