Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/7329/2021 of DR. PARIMAL VISHWAS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAFON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7329 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
DR. PARIMAL VISHWAS S/O KALIPATH VISHWAS, AGEDABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DOCTOR R/O GRAMPONDI, THANA AND DISTT MANDLA (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI RAJESH KUMAR SEN - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
ANDTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. THE POLICESTATION MANDLA DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI P. CHATTERJEE - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed thefollowing:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order ofsentence passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act (Attrocities), 1989, DistrictMandla in Special S.T. No.22/05 on 23.11.2021 whereby the appellant has beenconvicted under Section 341 (3 counts), 354 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergoR.I. for 1-1-1 month under Section 341 and six months R.I. under Section 354and fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, to further undergo one month R.I.
2 . The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial,the appellant remained in custody from 29.9.2004 to 30.9.2004 and thereafter,from 14.4.2019 to 27.4.2019. He prayed for acquittal of the appellant.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Statesupported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved theincident and the learned sessions Court has rightly convicted the appellant underSections 341 and 354 of Indian Penal Code.
4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal ofrecord, it appears that the victim lodged the FIR at Police Station Mandla,District Mandla on 28.9.2004 against the appellant Dr.P.K. Vishwas and Guddaalias Mukesh registered as Crime No.423/2004 under Sections 323, 294, 341,336, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, 1989.After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet. The prosecution examined16 witnesses in support of their case. PW-3 victim, PW-4 second victim dulynarrated the incident and involvement of the appellant in the offence. Theirstatements were supported by PW-5 Dinesh Kumar. The learned Special Judge,after considering the evidence available on record, by judgment dated23.11.2021, convicted the appellant under Sections 341 and 354 of IPC andsentenced as stated herein above. After examining the statement of thewitnesses and other material available on record, I do not find any reason tointerfere in the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge andconsequently, the judgment of conviction and sentence under Sections 341 and325 of Indian Penal Code are hereby upheld.
5. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year2004, the appellant remained in jail for a period of 17 days and the prosecutionhas not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellants on record.
There is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Section 341 or 354 ofIndian Penal Code at the time of commission of offence, therefore, I deem itproper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellant to the extent of the periodwhich he has already undergone and accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced.However, fine is enhanced from Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/-. The appellant shalldeposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from today. Theappellant is on bail, his personal bond and bail bond be discharged.Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
5. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.
Priya.P
(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE