SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Banesingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 November, 2018

-( 1 )-

Cr.Rev. No.3564/2018
(Banesingh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for
the non-applicant/ State.
Shri M.M.Bohra, learned counsel for the


(Passed on 1/11/2018)

The applicant has preferred this application
under section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved
by the judgment dated 16.07.2018 passed by Sessions
Judge, Rajgarh-Bioara in Cr.Appeal No.17/2018
confirming the judgment dated 22.12.2017 passed by
JMFC, Jeerapur, District Rajgarh in
No.564/2015 whereby the applicant has been
convicted for the offence under sections 323 and 354
of the IPC and sentenced to undergo three months RI
with fine of Rs.1,000/- and one year R.I. with fine of
Rs.1,000/- respectively with default stipulation.

2. The facts leading to the present case are that on
11.10.2015 at about 8.30 p.m. the victim was coming
to her home after attending the nature’s call, then near
the culvert, applicant caught her hand with an intent
to outrage her modesty and also pressed her breast.
When she made alarm, her son Rahul came. Then
applicant slapped her and threatened to kill. Victim
came to her house and narrated the incident to her

-( 2 )-

husband and lodged the FIR (Ex.P/1) at P.S. Jeerapur.
On the basis of aforesaid complaint, the offence was
registered at crime No.288/2015 under section 323,
354 and 506 of the IPC. After completion of the
investigation the chargesheet was filed before the
Court of JMFC, Jeerapur.

3. The trial court framed the charges against the
applicant under section 323, 354 and 506 of the IPC.

4. The applicant abjured his guilt and pleaded

5. After recording the evidence of the parties, trial
court while passing the impugned judgment
convicted the appellant for the offence punishable
under section 323 and 354 of the IPC. This order was
challenged in Appeal before the Court of Sessions
Judge, which was also dismissed by affirming the
conviction and sentence of the appellant. This order
is under challenge in the present revision petition.

6. During pendency of this Revision petition, both
the parties have filed I.A.Nos.6986/2018 and
6987/2018 for acquittal of the applicant, on the basis
of compromise arrived at between the parties.

7. The factum of compromise has been verified by
the Principal Registrar of this Court on 29.10.2018
and as per the verification report the parties have
amicably settled their dispute voluntarily without any

8. The offence under section 323 of the IPC is

-( 3 )-

compoundable, therefore in terms of compromise the
applicant is acquitted from the charge under section
323 IPC. However the offence under section 354 IPC
is non-compoundable. In this context, learned
counsel for applicant has placed reliance upon the
judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Bharti
Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2014 Cr.L.J. in
which the Hon. Apex Court has permitted the
appellant and complainant to compound the offence
under section 354 of the IPC and prayed that
I.A.Nos.6986/2018 and 6987/2018 be allowed and
applicant may be acquitted for the offence under
section 354 of the IPC.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that
the applicant has falsely been implicated in the
present case whereas he has not committed any such
offence. Learned counsel further submits that courts
below committed an error in not properly
appreciating the evidence, therefore the impugned
judgments are liable to be set aside in the present
Revision petition.

10. In alternate, learned counsel submits that
applicant has no previous antecedents and he is sole
bread earner of the family. Both the parties have also
resolved their dispute amicably and entered into the
compromise. Applicant has already served three and
half months jail sentence, therefore the same may be
reduced to the period already undergone and amount

-( 4 )-

of fine may reasonably be enhanced.

11. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that after
due appreciation of evidence on record, learned
courts below have found the applicant guilty of the
aforesaid offence. The jurisdiction of the revisional
court is limited and no interference is called for in the
concurrent finding recorded by the learned courts

12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
on perusal of the record, it reveals that report of the
incident was lodged on the same day and commission
of the alleged offence of the applicant is well
established on the basis of statement of victim(PW-1)
and her son, Rahul (PW-2). In view of aforesaid and
on the basis of material available on record, this court
is of the considered opinion that courts below have
not committed any error in convicting the applicant
for the offence under section 354 of the IPC.

12. So far as judgment relied upon by the learned
counsel for applicant is concerned, the same is not
applicable in the present case as in that case the
incident had taken place in the year 2000 when the
offence under section 354 of the IPC was

13. However, looking to the fact that both the
parties have entered into a compromise which has
already been verified by the Principal Registrar of
this Court, the appellant and complainant are resident

-( 5 )-

of same village and they are staying peacefully since
2015, this Court is of the opinion that if the sentence
awarded to the applicant is affirmed, then two
families may be disturbed in the peculiar facts of the
present case. In order to accord quietus to disputes
between parties and in larger interest of peace, this
Court deems fit to reduce the jail sentence for the
offence under section 354 of the IPC for a period
already undergone by the applicant subject to
depositing additional fine of Rs.5,000/- within a
period of 15 days. Out of the total fine amount,
Rs.1,000/- which has been deposited by the appellant
for the offence under section 323 of the IPC will be
adjusted in the aforesaid enhanced fine amount. In
default of payment of remaining enhanced fine
amount, the applicant shall suffer further two months
R.I. under section 354 IPC. After depositing the fine
amount, the applicant shall be released forthrwith, if
not required to be detained in any other case.

With the aforesaid, the Cr.Revision stands
disposed of.

Let a copy of the order be sent to concerned
trial court along with record for information and

Digitally signed by MUKTA
Date: 2018.11.03 15:45:07

-( 6 )-

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation