Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/2386/2018 of KHYALI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGHON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2386 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
KHYALI S/O SHRI DAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O GRAM MIHAWARATHANA SIHORE DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI RAJENDRA SHAKYA - ADVOCATE )
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH RESERVECENTRE SIHORE DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SMT. KALPANA PARMAR - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the 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
Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. beingaggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27/2/2018passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Karera, District Shivpuri inS.S.T.NO.19/2010; whereby, learned trial Court while acquitting the appellantfrom charge of offence under Section 397 of IPC and Section 11/13 ofMPDVPK Act, convicting him for commission of offence under Section 325 ofIPC and sentenced him to undergo one year RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and indefault of payment of fine to further undergo one month RI.
2 . Although this appeal has been filed on merits but today, learnedcounsel for the appellant pressed the appeal only regarding sentence part isconcerned and do not press the conviction part as mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel for the State expressed no objection if the aboveprayer is allowed.
4 . Although, conviction part of the impugned judgment has not beenpressed on merits but to do substantial justice, judgment of the trial Court isperused, oral and documentary evidence seen and after perusing the judgmentas well as the record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has properlyrecorded the conviction of the appellant as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, hisconviction is hereby affirmed; however, regarding quantum of sentence, whilereducing the jail sentence of present appellant to the period already undergoneby the appellans which is 29 days, the fine amount is enhanced fromRs.1,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- and if fine amount as imposed by the trial Courthas already been deposited by the appellant, same be adjusted. Out of theenhanced fine amount of Rs. 9,000/- to be deposited by the appellant, Rs.8,000/- be paid to victim - Bacchan as compensation and if necessary bysummoning him. If appellant deposit fine amount as directed hereinabove withina period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, asthe jail sentence of appellant has already been suspended, his bail bonds shallstand discharged and if he fails to deposit the fine amount, he has to undergototal jail sentence of one month.
5. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part with the above observations.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned forinformation.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)JUDGE