Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Santosh Kumar Vs. the State of M.P.

Santosh Kumar vs The State of M.P.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided May 09, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1044012

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Santosh Kumar

Respondent

The State of M.P.

Excerpt

.....behalf of the state has supported the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the judgment and other material on record specially the statement of prosecutrix. it appears from the statement of prosecutrix that the offence was committed upto the stage of preparation only, thus it is proved on record that the appellant has outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix. the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant for the offence under section 376/511 of the ipc. thus, the appellant is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 354 of the ipc. the appellant has suffered the jail sentence of about 1 month and 25 days. the incident had taken place in the year 1995, almost 17-18 years have elapsed by now, in my opinion, no fruitful purpose is going to be served by sending the appellant again to the jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, the appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone. consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. the conviction recorded by the trial court under section 376/511 of the ipc is hereby set aside. the appellant is convicted under section 354 of the ipc. the sentence recorded by the trial court is reduced to the period already undergone i.e.1 month and 25 days and fine of rs.2000/-. let fine amount be deposited by the appellant before the trial court within one month from today. the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. the record of the trial court be sent back along with the copy of this judgment for information and necessary action. (g.s.solanki) judge pb

Full Judgment

Cr.

Appeal No.1348/1997 9.5.2013 Shri Vasant Daniel, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, PL for the State.

Heard finally.

The appellant has been convicted under Section 376/511 of the IPC and sentenced to R.I.for 3 years by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment and finding dated 1.7.1997 passed in S.T.No.7/96.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court has committed illegality in appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective.

There is no evidence on record that the appellant attempted to commit rape on the prosecutrix.

Counsel has fairly submitted that only the offence under Section 354 of the IPC has been proved against the appellant.

Counsel has further submitted that the incident had taken place in the year 1995, 17-18 years have elapsed by now, the appellant has suffered the jail sentence of about 1 month and 25 days, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice if the appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone and fine amount is enhanced.

Learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State has supported the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the judgment and other material on record specially the statement of prosecutrix.

It appears from the statement of prosecutrix that the offence was committed upto the stage of preparation only, thus it is proved on record that the appellant has outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix.

The case of the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant for the offence under Section 376/511 of the IPC.

Thus, the appellant is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC.

The appellant has suffered the jail sentence of about 1 month and 25 days.

The incident had taken place in the year 1995, almost 17-18 years have elapsed by now, in my opinion, no fruitful purpose is going to be served by sending the appellant again to the jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, the appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone.

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.

The conviction recorded by the trial Court under Section 376/511 of the IPC is hereby set aside.

The appellant is convicted under Section 354 of the IPC.

The sentence recorded by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone i.e.1 month and 25 days and fine of Rs.2000/-.

Let fine amount be deposited by the appellant before the trial Court within one month from today.

The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged.

The record of the trial Court be sent back along with the copy of this judgment for information and necessary action.

(G.S.Solanki) Judge PB

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial