Khalique Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Khalique vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Oct 09, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1093396

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1093396
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Oct 09, 2013
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Khalique

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....against the judgment dated 26/8/2013 passed by i additional sessions judge, east nimad, khandwa, in cr.a. no.123/13 whereby the judgment dated 17/04/2013 passed by judicial magistrate first class, khandwa in criminal case no.3506/2012 convicting the petitioner under section 354 of indian penal code, sentencing him to undergo r.i. for six months and to pay a fine of rs. 500/-, was affirmed.2. prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14/11/2012 at 2.30 pm, petitioner not only caught hold of the prosecutrix, but also pressed her chest and insisted to accompany him to nagchoon and thereby outraged her modesty while threatening to rape her.3. at the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not want to challenge the conviction awarded to the petitioner. however, he prayed that the custodial sentence passed against the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone. according to him, the petitioner is in jail since 26/08/13.4. in response, learned government advocate while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record, submitted that the conviction was well merited and the impugned judgment did not warrant interference. cr.r.1761/2013 5. having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, records of the courts below were perused.6. as the conviction is not under challenge, adverting to the question of sentence, it is apparent that petitioner was 20 years of age on the date of incident and had no criminal antecedents and, therefore, interests of justice would be met if the term of custodial sentence is reduced to the period of three months.7. in view of the aforesaid, impugned conviction and consequent fine sentence are maintained. however, the impugned term of custodial sentence is reduced to a period of three months.8. in the result, the revision stands allowed in part.9. copy of the order be sent to the trial court for information and compliance. (b. d. rathi) judge910/13 (and)

Full Judgment

Cr.R.1761/2013 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.1761/2013 Petitioner : Khalique Vs. Respondent : The State of Madhya Pradesh Present: Hon. Shri B.D.Rathi ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For petitioner : Shri A.K. Tiwari, Advocate For the respondent : Shri S.K. Kashyap, Govt. Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER

(9/10/13) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 26/8/2013 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, East Nimad, Khandwa, in Cr.A. No.123/13 whereby the judgment dated 17/04/2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khandwa in Criminal Case No.3506/2012 convicting the petitioner under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, was affirmed.

2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14/11/2012 at 2.30 pm, petitioner not only caught hold of the prosecutrix, but also pressed her chest and insisted to accompany him to Nagchoon and thereby outraged her modesty while threatening to rape her.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not want to challenge the conviction awarded to the petitioner. However, he prayed that the custodial sentence passed against the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone. According to him, the petitioner is in jail since 26/08/13.

4. In response, learned Government Advocate while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record, submitted that the conviction was well merited and the impugned judgment did not warrant interference. Cr.R.1761/2013 5. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, records of the Courts below were perused.

6. As the conviction is not under challenge, adverting to the question of sentence, it is apparent that petitioner was 20 years of age on the date of incident and had no criminal antecedents and, therefore, interests of justice would be met if the term of custodial sentence is reduced to the period of three months.

7. In view of the aforesaid, impugned conviction and consequent fine sentence are maintained. However, the impugned term of custodial sentence is reduced to a period of three months.

8. In the result, the revision stands allowed in part.

9. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance. (B. D. RATHI) JUDGE910/13 (and)

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Khalique vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Criminal