Narayan vs The State Of M.P. on 25 May, 2017

1 Cr.A. No.567/2002

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI VIRENDER SINGH, J.

Narayan S/o Mangi Lal Khati
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
Smt. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned DGA for the
respondent/State.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 25/05/2017)

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
24/04/2002 passed by ASJ, Khachrod, District-Dewas passed in
ST No.244/2002 whereby the learned Court has convicted the
appellant for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 354
of IPC and imposed fine of Rs.500/- and imprisonment of six
months with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine,
further to undergo SI for one month respectively, the appellant
has preferred the present appeal.

2. Facts in brief are that the prosecutrix who was working as
ANM at Sub-Health Centre, Tiwadia was going to administer
2 Cr.A. No.567/2002

medicine to Village-Tikwada and Badnawar on 13/10/2001.
After taking medicines from Khategaon. She took lift and
boarded the tractor of the appellant who was also going the
same direction. On the way, when tractor reached in a deserted
forest area near a nullah, the accused stopped the tractor on
the pretext of some fault. He went of the tractor pretending
that he is going to repair it. Suddenly he reached behind the
prosecutrix and caught her. On her resistance, he lifted her in
his arms and thrown her on the ground and put himself over
the prosecutrix and threatened her to keep quite, else he will
kill her. The prosecutrix pushed the accused, her bangles
broken down. At that time, on seeing the bullock-cart coming
towards them, the accused/appellant left her and fled away.
The prosecutrix narrated the incident to Krishnabai, who was
present in the bullock-cart and on next day after reaching
Khategoan filed the report Ex.P/1. The police after investigation
filed the charge-sheet. The accused was charged with Section
341
, 323, 376 readwith Section 511 of IPC. After trial charge
under Section 376 and 511 was not found proved and
appellant was charged under Section 323 and 354 of IPC, as
stated in para 1 above.

READ  Basheer Alias Karan Solanki vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 April, 2017

3. The appellant has preferred the appeal on various
grounds but learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that he does not want to press the appeal on merits.
He only prays that considering the nature of offence and in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping
in view the long pendency of the appeal, the jail sentence of
the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone.

3 Cr.A. No.567/2002

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer.

5. I have considered the prayer of appellant. The date of
incident is 30/10/2001. Appellant remained in jail for 7 days.
Certainly the pre and past incidents, conduct of the appellant,
cannot be lost sight and can be taken as mitigating
circumstances. Appellant is facing trial since 2002. So looking
to the fact and circumstances of the case, the substantive
sentence of appellant awarded by the trial court under Section
354
IPC are altered from six months RI to the imprisonment of
period already undergone with fine amount of Rs.5,000/-
instead of Rs.2,000/-. The award of compensation awarded by
trial Court is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/-.

6. To the aforesaid extent the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court dated 24/02/2002 passed in Sessions
Trial No.244/2002 is modified. Accordingly this appeal is partly
allowed in the terms indicated above. A copy of this order be
sent to the Court of ASJ, Khachrod, District-Dewas for
information and necessary compliance.

7. With the aforesaid, appeal is disposed of accordingly.

C.C. as per rules.

READ  Manish vs State on 26 April, 2017

(Virender Singh)
Judge
Aiyer*

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *