Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/2507/2021 of VRANDAVAN TIWARI @ BADE BETA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWALON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2507 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1.VRANDAVAN TIWARI @ BADE BETA S/OMAHADEV PRASAD TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 30Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILLAGESIRASWAHA P.S. BRAJPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.PRAMOD TIWARI @ HALKE BETA S/O MAHADEVPRASAD TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILLAGE SIRAWAHA P.SBRAJPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI M.K. PANDEY - ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS)
.....APPELLANTS
ANDTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRO. P.S. BRAJPURDISTT. PANNA M.P (MADHYA PRADESH)THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRO. P.S. BRAJPURDISTT. PANNA M.P (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI DILIP SHRIVASTAVA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE)
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the 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 under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. againstthe judgment of conviction dated 25.03.2021 passed by the Special Judge(SC/ST Act), Panna District - Panna in Special Case (ATR) No.29/2015,whereby learned Special Judge found the appellants guilty for the offencepunishable under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 of IPC and directed them tosuffer R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.1000/- (each).
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,Crime was registered against the appellants at Police Station Brijpur, DistrictPanna for commission of offence punishable under Section 294, 323, 325, 34and 506 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filedbefore the competent Court.
3. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses andappreciating the evidence led by parties, learned trial Court found the appellantsguilty for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 and 325/34 of IPC andsentenced them as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the impugnedjudgment, the appellants have preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants expressly gave up his challenge tothe findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellants isconcerned. In other words, learned counsel for the appellants accepted thefinding of conviction passed against the appellants, however, he challenged thequantum of punishment alone. The appellants are the first offender and counselassures that they will not involve in such criminal activities in future. Simpleinjury has been caused to the complainants. It is also submitted that havingregard to all circumstances which resulted in appellants' conviction and furtherkeeping in view the fact that the appellants are facing the trial since the year 2015and appeal is pending since 2021, therefore, he prayed that the jail sentence ofappellants be reduced suitably or with fine amount.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that afterappreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Court below hasrightly found the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offence, therefore, nogrounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellants,hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entirerecord of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal in part upon finding someforce in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.
7. Though the appellants have not made any attempt to assail the findingof their conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether thefindings of the Court below of conviction is legally sustainable or not, I perusedthe record and especially therein having so perused, I am satisfied that no caseis made out to interfere in the findings of the Court below on merits. From theperusal of the record, it reveals that the finding of the trial court is based onproper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence therefore, upheld thefindings of conviction of appellants under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 of IPCrecorded by the Court below.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants andperiod of jail sentence already undergone by them which is about 147 days andthe fact that the appellants have no previous criminal antecedents and thisappeal is of the year 2021 and they are facing trial since the year 2015 andlooking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of theconsidered view that the ends of justice would be met if the appellants aresentenced for the period already undergone by them with imposing fine amounton them.
9. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned convictioni s hereby maintained. However, the jail sentence imposed on appellants isreduced to the period already undergone by them. The fine amount is enhancedfrom Rs.1000/- to Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 325 of IPC, whichshall be deposited by the appellants within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In default of payment of fine amount byappellants within the stipulated period, the appellants shall suffer 1 month R.I.Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
10. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal appeal stands partly allowed and disposed of.
Let a copy of this order alongwith record be sent to the court below for information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per Rules.
DPS
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)JUDGE