Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/718/2016 of KOKSINGH MAGHAYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE
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.718 OF 2016
BETWEEN:-
KOK SINGH MAGHAYA, S/O SHRI JAYDAYALMAGHAYA, AGED- 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION-AGRICULTURIST, R/O WARD NO.11, BHITARWAR,DISTRICT- GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
….....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI AMIT BANSAL- ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATION-BHITARWAR, DISTRICT- GWALIOR (MADHYAPRADESH)
….....RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. KALPANA PARMAR – PANEL LAWYER)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This appeal coming on for orders 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
This appeal is of the year 2016. This appeal has been filed by theappellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated28/07/2016 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities Act), District- Gwalior(M.P.) in S.S.T. No.139/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
2. Allegation against the appellant, in short, is that on the issue ofparking the vehicle, appellant started abusing the complainant by using hercaste related words to the complainant. On the basis of aforesaid, crime wasregistered against the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per para 19 of thejudgment of the trial Court, appellant has already been acquitted from theoffence under Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act and he has never served incustody for a single day. As far as the sentence of the appellant for theaforesaid offence is concerned, it is submitted by counsel for the appellantthat by enhancing the fine amount suitably for the aforesaid offence, jailsentence awarded to the appellant may be set-aside.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has no objection if the jailsentence of the appellant is set-aside by enhancing the fine amount. Learnedcounsel for the State informs that Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma- Advocate hasbeen engaged by the complainant and when she telephoned him, he informedher that he is out of station and he has no objection, if jail sentence ofappellant is set-aside by enhancing the fine amount which may be given tothe complainant as compensation.
4. Although appeal on merit is not pressed today but in the interest ofjustice, after going through the record and looking to the facts conviction isfound to be justified, hence, conviction is affirmed. And in the circumstancesof the case, this Court is of the view that while affirming the conviction ofthe appellant under Section 294 and 352 of IPC, jail sentence of the appellant can be reduced by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.500/- toRs.5000/- for the offence under Section 294 of IPC but for the offence underSection 352 of IPC can be maintained.Accordingly, fine amount is enhancedfrom Rs.500/- to Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 294 of IPC but forthe offence under Section 352 of IPC is maintained which shall be depositedby the appellant within a period of 30 days' from the date of receipt ofcertified copy of this order, failing which the appellant will have to suffer thecomplete sentence as awarded by the trial Court. Out of the additional fineamount deposited by the appellant, Rs.4000/- be given to the complainant-Mamta as compensation. Rest of the amount shall be treated as cost of theprosecution.
5. In view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.6.Let a copy of this order be sent alongwith the record to the concernedCourt for necessary compliance. 6.Let a copy of this order be sent alongwith the record to the concernedCourt for necessary compliance.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) V. JUDGE
RAHUL SINGH PARIHARrahulDigitally signed by RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=eac942476567cd1b39b3da46068403462fdf82ab676d0cde4dee473fe77953f5, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=0275C4F803F94C47998BE5C534E21BDED910FD4AB9D159B55575E814D05B2EED, cn=RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Date: 2023.12.29 18:46:19 +05'30'