1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Cr.A. No. 2389/2006 Udda alias Udayram Nai Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh ___________________________________________________________ For the appellant: Shri Ashok Chakraverty, Advocate For the respondent/: Shri N.K. Agrawal, Government State Advocate ___________________________________________________________ Present: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Sinho ___________________________________________________________ J U D G M E N T (05.05.2011) 1. The appellant has filed this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.11.2006 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Raisen in Special Case No.33/2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 354 of I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 1 month. 2. According to prosecution case on 14.02.2006 at about 5:00 p.m. complainant Jeejanbai along with her sister was returning after harvesting the wheat crop, on the way appellant Udda @ Udairam came and caught hold the hand of complainant and said to go in the field of Tuar on this complainant and her sister made hue and cry then the appellant ran away threatening to kill if disclosed this fact to anybody. Thereafter complainant and her sister 2 went in the field of Kallu Dhanak and narrated the whole incident and thereafter they also narrated the whole incident to their mother, father and neighbour Mehgu and on the next day lodged the report. On this report Crime No.43/2006 was registered under Sections 354, 506 of I.P.C. and 3(1)(xi) of S.C. S.T. Act against the appellant. After completing the usual investigation the charge sheet was filed in the competent court. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that he is not challenging the finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court whereby the appellant has been found guilty under Section 354 of I.P.C. The only prayer is that the appellant is not habitual offender and no previous criminal conduct of the appellant has been proved by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant remained in jail for about 37 days, therefore, he be released on the period already undergone. 4. The learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment passed by the court below. 5. Learned trial Court has rightly relied on the statement of PW-1 Jeejan Bai duly corroborated by PW-4 Nanhi Bai, PW-3 Ramkishan, PW-2 Mehgu and PW-5 Bablu. The version of PW-1 prosecutrix is also supported by F.I.R. Ex.P-1. 6. As before this court the concurrent finding of conviction of the appellant under Section 354 of I.P.C. is not challenged, hence, the aforesaid finding is hereby affirmed. 3 7. With regard to sentence is concerned, admittedly, the appellant was in custody for 37 days. He is a first offender. No previous criminal conduct of the appellant has been proved by the prosecution. No fruitful purpose will be served by sending him in jail after lapse of such a long time. In these circumstances, the jail sentence awarded by the court below can be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant under Section 354 of I.P.C. is hereby affirmed, however, the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.2500/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer further imprisonment for 1 month. 9. The total realised fine amount of Rs.2500/- be paid to complainant Jeejan Bai (PW-1) W/o Pappu, R/o Ratanpur, District Raisen (M.P.) by way of compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. 10. With the aforesaid directions and modifications in the sentence, this criminal appeal stands disposed of. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance. (S.C. Sinho) Judge psm