(1.) FACTUAL ASPECTS : The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 333, 353 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). The Sessions Court convicted the appellant for all three offences. For the offences punishable under Ss. 451 and 353 of the IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and for the offence punishable under Sec. 333 of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.2,000.00. By the impugned judgment, the High Court while upholding the conviction, brought down the substantive sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months for each of the three offences. On 9/5/2023, this Court issued a notice confined only to the sentencing part.
(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant firstly submitted that considering the facts of the case, the appellant deserves to be granted the benefit of probation under Sec. 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') and/or the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958. Secondly, he submitted that the incident complained occurred on 1/12/1992 and during the period of the last thirty and a half years, during the pendency of the trial and appeal, the appellant was all throughout on bail. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant is a woman whose present age is 62 years. He submitted that considering the long passage of time of thirty years and more from the date of the offence and other relevant factors, even if the benefit of probation cannot be given to the appellant, she deserves to be let off only on payment of a fine.
(3.) Mr. D.S. Parmar, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent - State of M.P. submitted that the appellant has misbehaved with PW1 who is a public servant and obstructed her and PW6 from discharging their official duties and therefore, in fact, stringent punishment was called for. Moreover, the High Court has already shown leniency by reducing the sentence.