Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/711/2017 of AJAY SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANION THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 711 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
AJAY SINGH S/O SHRI RADHEYSHAM SINGHKUSHWAHA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILL. RANIPURA, P.S. PAWAI,DISTT. BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRIANAND PUROHIT - ADVOCATE )
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. INCHARGEPOLICE STATION PAWAI DISTT. BHIND (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI ATUL SHARMA - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the following:
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 appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 (2) ofCr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.05.2017 passed by Districtand Sessions Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial No.130/2015 whereby theappellant has been convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced toundergo One year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3000/- and u/s. 452of the I.P.C and sentenced to undergo One year rigorous imprisonment with afine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that he does not wish to challenge the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence. It issubmitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that at the time of offence theaccused was of 18 years of age and in a heat of passion the incident has takenplace as no previous enmity is established. As regards sentence, it is submittedby learned counsel for the appellant that the period already undergone would besufficient in the ends of justice as the appellant has already suffered 27 days jailsentence and he has been facing agony of trial since 2014 for a period of nearabout 09 years. It is further submitted that appellant has no previous criminalantecedents. It is prayed that sentence of the appellant may be reduced to theperiod already undergone while enhancing fine amount suitably.
3. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment but he has no objection on deciding the appeal on the point of sentence.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it is found that trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on recordand rightly convicted the appellant under Section 324 and 452 of the I.P.C.hence, conviction of the appellant under Section 324 and 452 of the I.P.C.needs no interference.
6. As regards sentence, looking to the facts and circumstances of thecase and evidence on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, ends ofjustice would meet if while reducing the jail sentence of the appellant to theperiod already undergone by him, fine amount is enhanced to Rs. 5000/- underSection 324 of the L.P.C. and Rs. 2000/- u/s. 452 of IPC. Accordingly, whileaffirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 435 of the LP.C. jailsentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him and fine amount is enhanced to Rs. 5000/- under Section 324 of the L.P.C. and Rs. 2000/- u/s. 452 of IPC. The fine amount already deposited by the appellantbe adjusted against the aforesaid amount of fine. The fine amount shall bedeposited by him within a period of two months from today, failing which theappellant will have to suffer the sentence as awarded by the trial Court. Theentire amount of the fine deposited by the appellant be paid to thecomplainant/injured as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.
ar
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)JUDGE