1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ; JABALPUR Cr.R.No. 1793/2011 Rajendra alias Raju Vs. The State of M.P. For the Applicant : Shri U.K.Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Yogesh Dhande, Dy.GA ORDER (oral) (14/11/2011) Per : U.C.Maheshwari J. The applicant/accused has filed this revision under section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C, being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 30.09.2011 passed by the 8th Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) Rewa in Cr.A.No.181/11 whereby the judgment dated 12.5.2011 passed by the JMFC Rewa in Cri.Case No.1539/2010, convicting and sentencing the applicant under section 354 of the IPC for RI six months with fine of Rs.500/- has been affirmed. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that the prosecutrix Chandrakali Rajak lodged a report dated 14.5.2010 at police station Sagra district Rewa contending that she along with her son Ashish was sleeping in her courtyard of the house, its door was open, at the same time the applicant entered in the house and with bad intention, after catching her hand touched her Sari, on which, she shouted consequently, her son awoke and tried to hold the applicant but he fled away from such place. The applicant was also followed by her son but he could not catch him. At the time of the incident, her husband had went to answer the call of nature. He also followed the applicant from the same field. On such report the offence of section 354 of the IPC was registered. After holding the investigation, the applicant was charge-sheeted for such offence. After framing the charge, on appreciation of the evidence the applicant was convicted and sentenced as stated above. On filing the appeal, the same was dismissed thereafter the applicant has 2 come forward to this court with this revision. 3. The applicant's counsel without challenging the findings of the impugned judgment holding conviction against the applicant under the aforesaid sections made his limited submissions, firstly the applicant being first offender, did not have any criminal antecedents, be extended the benefit of the Probation of the Offenders Act and secondly and also in alternative, he prayed to reduce the jail sentence of the applicant up to the period for which he has suffered, as he is in custody since 30.9.2011 the date of the impugned judgment of the appellate court till today and suffered near about one and a half months, by enhancing the amount of fine under the discretion of the court and prayed for allowing this revision till this extent. 4. On the other hand, Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. G.A by justifying the impugned conviction and sentence said that the same, being based on proper appreciation of the evidence, is in conformity with law, does not require any interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this court either for extending the acquittal to the applicant or to extend the benefit of the Probation of the Offenders Act or to reduce the jail sentence awarded by the courts below and prayed for dismissal of this revision. 5. Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view their arguments advanced, I have carefully gone through the records of the courts below and I have not found any perversity, infirmity or illegality or anything against the propriety of the law in appreciation of the evidence in the impugned judgments of the courts below holding guilty to the applicant for the aforesaid offence. In such premises, there is no scope in the matter to extend acquittal to the applicant. 6. Coming to consider the arguments advanced by the applicant's counsel for extending the benefit of the Probation of the Offenders Act is concerned, looking to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed by the applicant as stated above, I am not inclined to extend such benefit to the applicant, hence such prayer of the applicant is hereby failed. 7. So far the alternative prayer of the applicant for reducing the jail sentence is 3 concerned, I have found some substance in it. It is apparent from the record that applicant is the first offender and did not have any criminal antecedents except the present case and he has already suffered the mental agony of the impugned case during pendency of the trial and the appeal by appearing in such court on each and every hearing. Beside this, he is also suffering the jail sentence since the date of impugned judgment. In such premises, looking to the nature of the offence , I deem fit to reduce his jail sentence from the awarded jail sentence of six months to the period of three months but by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.2500/- with a direction to give such fine amount to the complainant to sub serve the justice with her also. 8. Therefore, by affirming the findings of the courts below holding conviction against the applicant under the aforesaid offence, this revision is allowed in part and his jail sentence is hereby reduced from six months to the period of three months by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.2500/- to be deposited in the trial court within 30 days from today. In default of depositing the fine amount, he has to suffer further two months RI. On depositing such enhanced fine amount, the same be paid to the complainant by calling her in the court through summons. Till this extent, the impugned judgment is modified while the remaining findings of the same are hereby affirmed. 9. In view of the aforesaid order, IA No.20282/11 an application for suspension of the remaining jail sentence does not require any consideration, hence the same is hereby disposed of. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL 4