BALDEO Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 17.11.1992 passed by Sessions Judge Dewas in Cr. Appeal No. 20/92 whereby conviction u/s 457 and 354 of the IPC and sentence of two years RI and fifie of Rs. 250 u/s 457 and one year's RI and fine of Rs. 250/ - u/s 354 of IPC respectively awarded to the applicant vide judgment dated 25.2.92 passed by JMFC Dewas in Cr. Case No. 40/91 was altered to section 456 and 354 of the IPC and sentenced to six months RI and fine of Rs. 250/ - in default of payment of fine 2 months further RI on each count.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, was that on 11.2.91 at about 9 p.m. the applicant Baldeo entered the house of complainant Mangubai (PW 1) by jumping wall of her house and out -raged her modesty. She made cry, hearing which Gorabai (PW 5) and Ramprasad (PW 2), the younger brother of her husband came there. Manubai narrated the incident to them. On the next day FIR Ex. P/3 was lodged and offence u/s 457 and 354 of the IPC was registered. After investigation challan was filed. The applicant pleaded not guilty. The learned JMFC convicted and sentenced the applicant as stated above. Being unsuccessful in criminal appeal the applicant has filed this revision petition.

(3.) I considered the arguments advanced by counsel for both sides and perused the record. This incident took place about 9 years back, on 11.2.91 when the applicant was of 16 years of age and now he is living peacefully with his family. He has suffered jail -sentence about 15 days. Now after lapse of such a long period, no purpose would be served in sending him to jail. The Apex Court in case of Braham Das v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1988 SC 1789, after 8 years of the incident, set -aside the jail -sentence awarded to the accused -appellant holding that after such a long period the ends of justice would meet if the applicant is sentenced to the period already undergone.