RAJU AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants, being aggrieved by judgment dated 26 th December 2005, passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar, Guna (MP) in Sessions Trial No.04/2005, whereby appellant No.1 Raju and appellant No.3 Harveer have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354(A) read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer three-three years RI with fine of Rs.1,000- 1,000/- and they have further been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 427 of IPC and sentenced to suffer one-one year RI with fine of Rs.2,000-2,000/- while appellant no.2 Babua has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC and sentenced to suffer one year RI with a fine of Rs. 1, 000/- and he has further been sentenced to suffer six months RI with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and three years RI with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 354(A) read with Section 34 of IPC, with default stipulations.

(2.) As per the allegation, the incident took place inside the house of complainant on 23/11/2004 whereby the appellants illegally entered into the house of complainant in the night and used criminal force against her and thereafter they put off cloth of the complainant and tried to outrage her modesty. Thereafter, all of them caused damage to the household articles causing loss to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that to constitute the offence punishable under Section 354(A)/34 of IPC, the appellants should have tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant at open place which is a necessary ingredient for implicating the appellants in the case. In the present case, the incident took place inside the house of complainant which does not fall within the purview of "open place". Therefore, offence under Section 354-A/34 of IPC is not made out against the appellants and at the most, offence under Section 354 of IPC is made out. That apart, learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that appellant Harveer remained in custody from 16/12/2004 till 22/12/2004 and thereafter from 24/09/2005 till passing of judgment by trial Court i.e. 26/12/2005. Appellant Harveer remained in custody from 16/12/2004 to 22/12/2004 and thereafter from 24/09/2005 till passing of judgment by trial Court i.e. 26/12/2005. Appellant Raju remained in custody from 13/12/2004 to 22/12/2004 and thereafter, from 24/09/2005 till passing of judgment by trial Court i.e. 26/12/2005. All the appellants remained in custody from the date of passing of judgment i.e. from 26/12/2005 till 31/03/2006, which is sufficient sentence as undergone by them in custody. Hence, period of sentence awarded by learned trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone by them in custody.