Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/11145/2022 of MUKESH @ MUKEEM CHOUDHARY 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 JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWALON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11145 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1.MUKESH @ MUKEEM CHOUDHARY S/O DADDICHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE BARHI, P.S.NOUROZABAD DISTRICT UMARIYA (MADHYAPRADESH)CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE BARHI, P.S.NOUROZABAD DISTRICT UMARIYA (MADHYAPRADESH)
2.DADDI RAIDAS S/O BASOHARA RAIDAS, AGEDABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURISTRESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARHI POLICE STATIONNOUROZABAD DISTRICT UMARIYA (MADHYAPRADESH)ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURISTRESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARHI POLICE STATIONNOUROZABAD DISTRICT UMARIYA (MADHYAPRADESH)
3.RAKESH CHOUDHARY S/O DADDI CHOUDHARY,AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURRESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARHI POLICE STATIONNOUROZABAD DISTRICT UMARIYA (MADHYAPRADESH)AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURRESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARHI POLICE STATIONNOUROZABAD DISTRICT UMARIYA (MADHYAPRADESH)
4.SWAROOPLAL @ CHHABBU RAIDAS S/O DADDIRAIDAS, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:LABOUR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARHI POLICESTATION NOUROZABAD DISTRICT UMARIYA(MADHYA PRADESH)RAIDAS, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:LABOUR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARHI POLICESTATION NOUROZABAD DISTRICT UMARIYA(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI SHANKAR P.D. SINGH - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANTS
ANDTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.NOUROZABAD DISTRICT UMARIYA (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI R.P. PRAJAPATI - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT
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 under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. againstthe judgment of conviction dated 22.11.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge,Umariya in Special Case No.23/2016, whereby learned Sessions Judge foundthe appellant No.1 & 2 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324/34of IPC and directed to suffer S.I. for one year with fine of Rs.500/- andappellants No.3 & 4 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPCand directed to suffer S.I. for one year with fine of Rs.500/- with defaultstipulations.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,Crime was registered at Police Station Nourojabad, District Umariya against theappellants No.1 to 3 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 341,294, 326/34 and 324/34 (two counts) and against appellant No.4 under Section506-II 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 appellantNo.1 & 2 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 of IPC andappellants No.3 & 4 under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced them asmentioned above. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the appellantshave preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants expressly gave up their challenge to the findings of the Court below so far as is the conviction of the appellant areconcerned. In other words, learned counsel for the appellants accepted thefinding of conviction passed against the appellants, however, he challenged the quantum of punishment alone. It is submitted that the appellants are the onlyearning person in their family, they are the first offender and counsel assuresthat they will not involve in such criminal activities in future. It is also submittedthat having regard to all circumstances which resulted in appellants' convictionand further keeping in view the fact that the appellants were facing the trial sincethe year 2016, therefore, he prayed that his jail sentence be reduced suitably.
5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has submitted that afterappreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Courts below haverightly 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 No.1 & 2 under Section 324/34 of IPC andappellants No.3 & 4 under Section 324 of IPC recorded by the Court below.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants andperiod of jail sentence already undergone by appellant No.1 which is about 14days, appellants No.2 which is about 4 days, appellant No.3 which about 6
days and appellant No.4 which is about 2 days as on date and the fact that theyhave no previous criminal antecedents and looking to the facts andcircumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that the ends ofjustice would be met if the appellants sentenced for the period alreadyundergone by them with some enhancement in the fine amount.
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 and the sentence of fine isenhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.4,000/- each, which shall be deposited within aperiod of one month. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount within thestipulated period, the appellants shall suffer 1 month R.I. Appellants are on bail.Their bail bonds stand discharged. Amount of fine, if any, deposited earliershall be adjusted.
10. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal appeal standspartly allowed and disposed of.
Let a copy of this order alongwith record be sent to the court below forinformation and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per Rules.
Sateesh
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)JUDGE