1 Cr.A.No.275/2003 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL, J. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 275/2003 1. Hari @ Hargovind S/o Shivlal, aged 21 years. 2. Deepak @ Deepu S/o Ramesh Chand Rathore 3. Mohan, S/o Sunderlal Koli aged 22 years, All residents of Khiria Narayandas, Begamganj, District Raisen ... Appellants Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh through P.S. Begamganj District Raisen ... Respondent For Appellants : Shri R.S. Chakravarti, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Vinod Fouzdar, Panel Lawyer JUDGMENT 13.12.2011 This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 05.02.2003 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Raisen in Special Case No. 105/02 convicting the appellants under Section 452 and of IPC and sentenced to 3 months R.I. and Rs. 200/- fine, and further convicted the appellants under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to Rs. 1,000/- fine only, in default of payment of fine sentenced 3 months R.I. has also been imposed. 2 Cr.A.No.275/2003 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 19.06.2002 at about 2:00 a.m. while prosecutrix aged 25 years PW-1 was cooking food in her house, appellants came and asked for her husband as they were searching for her husband. Appellants did not find him in the house hence forcibly entered in the house and subjected PW-1 to indecent assaults PW-1, somehow, could manage to come out of the house and reached at police station Begamganj. She lodged report against appellant. A case was registered at Crime No. 173/2002 under section 452, 354 and 34 of IPC. Appellant Hari was arrested on 19.06.2002, appellant Deepak was arrested on 01.07.2002 and appellant Mohan was arrested on 15.07.2002. 3. Completing the investigation police submitted a charge-sheet against appellants under Section 452, 354 of IPC and under section 3 (1) (10) of Prevention of Atrocities (SC/ST) Act, 1989. Trial court framed charges under Section 452, 354/34 of IPC and 3(1)(11) of Prevention of Attrocities (SC/ST) Act. Appellants abjured guilt. 4. Defence of the appellant was that of false implication stating that PW-1 is a Dhobi and has damaged clothes of appellants. Appellants were demanding money for loss caused to them hence this false case has been cooked against them. 5. To substantiate the case of prosecution statements of Gulab Bai (PW-1), Shyam Bai (PW-2) her mother-in-law, Guddu (PW-3) her husband and S.P. Sharma Sub-Inspector (PW-4) were recorded. To substantiate the defence of the appellants, statement of Devi Singh (DW-1) were recorded. Appreciating the aforesaid evidence Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. 6. This appeal has been preferred on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper. Evidence of 3 family members only, has wrongly been believed by the Trial Court despite 3 Cr.A.No.275/2003 the fact that evidence is suffering for material contradictions and omissions. 7. On the other hand learned panel lawyer supported the findings and jail sentence. 8. Prosecutrix (PW-1) stated that appellants came together as they were searching for her husband and told that they will beat him. She has further stated that appellants caught her and assaulted her with ulterior motive. Her statement is supported by the evidence of Shyam Bai (PW-2) and Guddu (PW-3) also. 9. Devi Singh DW-1 stated that clothes of appellant Mohan were burnt while PW-3 Guddu was putting iron on them. On account of this loss appellant was demanding compensation for his clothes. In fact, no incident took place as narrated by PWs. 10. Evidence of PW-1 is duly corroborated by other witnesses. Any witness cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that he or she is the family member. Evidence has to be appreciated on merits only. In my considered opinion, conviction under Section 452 of IPC and 354 of IPC is based on correct appreciation on evidence. 11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that this incident had happened about 9 years back on a very minor issues. Appellant Hari remained in custody for 7 days and appellant Mohan remained in custody for 10 days during investigation and trial. Similarly appellant Deepak has suffered 2 days custody. No useful purpose would be served by sending the appellants back in jail. 12. In my considered opinion for the offence under section 452 of IPC period of custody already undergone seems to be sufficient but fine of Rs. 200/- seems to be less and disproportionate. Instead they are sentenced with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 13. As discussed above this appeal allowed in part on the point of sentence only. For offence under Section 452 of IPC, they are 4 Cr.A.No.275/2003 sentenced to the period already undergone by them however fine of Rs. 200/- is enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- of each appellant. In default appellants will undergo one month R.I. 14. Conviction and sentence under section 354 of IPC is affirmed, 15. Appeal is allowed in part as indicate above. 16. Appellants are directed to remain present in Trial Court on or before 18.01.2012 for depositing the balance fine amount or to undergo default of sentence, as the case may be. C.C. as per rules. (TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL) JUDGE ak