Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/272/2013 of DOCTOR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWALON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 272 of 2013
BETWEEN:-
DOCTOR S/O CHATTARSINGH BHEEL, AGED ABOUT 28Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILL.DHAWLYA KUNWA PANWADA, KHARGONE (MADHYAPRADESH)
(SHRI HARSHVARDHAN PATHAK, ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S. OONDISTT. KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
(MS. HARSHLATA SONI, PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
This appeal coming on for order 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.
ORDER
This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by theappellant, being aggrieved by the judgement dated 31.12.2012, passed by 1stAdditional Sessions Judge, Khargone, West Nimar (M.P.), in Sessions TrialNo.147/2012, whereby appellant has been convicted for offence under Section435 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. of 06 months with fine ofRs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional S.I. of 01month.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submits that he is notchallenging the impugned judgement on merits and is confining his argument only on the point of sentence.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of thecase.
4. So far as conviction is concerned, I have gone through the evidenceadduced by the prosecution as well as impugned judgement. Perusal of samereveals that learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgement after takinginto consideration overall facts on record and examining it appropriately. Thefindings recorded by learned Trial Court are well supported by evidence onrecord. Hence, no interference is called for in the findings recorded by learnedTrial Court and conviction of appellant u/S 435 of IPC is affirmed.
5. So far as sentenced is concerned, learned Trial Court has sentencedappellant u/S 435 of IPC with R.I. of 06 months with fine of Rs.10,000/- withfurther default stipulation. Present incident relates to the year 2012 and partiesare closely related with each other. As per Nuksani Panchnama (Exhibit-P/3),appellant has damaged wheat crop and thereby, causing loss of Rs.20,000/- tothe complainant. As per record, appellant has remained in custody from09.04.2012 to 17.04.2012. Hence, in view of above and considering overallfacts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be served ifappellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him and by enhancingthe fine amount to Rs.20,000/-.
6. Resultantly, appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed.Appellant is sentenced with the period already undergone by him and fineamount is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- for offence u/S 435 ofIPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months R.I.
7. Appellant is directed to deposit the enhanced fine amount within a gp period of three months from today, failing which, appellant shall surrenderbefore the Trial Court to undergo remaining sentence of imprisonment, asimposed by Trial Court. Fine amount, if any, already deposited, shall beadjusted against the enhanced fine amount. After realization of above fineamount, total amount of Rs.15,000/- be paid to the complainant Suresh, ascompensation.
8. With the aforesaid, present appeal stands partly allowed to theextent indicated above.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)JUDGE