Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/2609/2005 of JAIKISHAN 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 DEVNARAYAN MISHRAON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2609 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
1.JAIKISHAN S/O HARCHAND BHILALA, AGEDABOUT 35 YEARS, BHADLIKHEDA, DISTRICTKHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.RAGHUVEER S/O DASHRATH BHILALA, AGEDABOUT 19 YEARS, PIPALKOT DISTRICTKHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.ATMARAM S/O SABAKSINGH BHILALA, AGEDABOUT 22 YEARS, BHADLIKHEDA DISTRICTKHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(ESHAAN DATT APPEARED FOR PETITIONER.)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S. NARMADANAGAR KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( KU. KAMLESH TAMARKAR P.L. APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATEGENERAL.)
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
The appellants have preferred this appeal being aggrieved of judgmentand finding dated 8.12.2005, passed by learned IIIrd Additional SessionsJudge, Fast Track, Khandwa (M.P.), in S.T.No.79/2005, by which the each ofthe appellants have been convicted by the learned trial Court for committing offence under Section 323/34 of Indian Penal Code, and have been awardedsentence of one year R.I. each with fine amount of Rs.500/- each, and in defaultR.I. for one month.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants Shri Eshaan Datt has argued that theincident is of the year 2005 and the appeal is pending since 18 years. Theappellants No.1 and 2 were in custody for 22 days, and appellant No.3 was incustody for 9 days, he further submits that though the conviction be maintained,and he is not pressing the appeal on the point of conviction, however, he praysto reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants.
3. The learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State has submitted that ifthe conviction is maintained and fine is enhanced, she has no objection toreducing the jail appeal.
4. Heard the parties and perused the record. After appreciation of theevidence and the facts brought on record, the conviction of the appellants underSection 323 read with Section 34 of IPC is maintained and affirmed.
5. On the point of sentence, it is found that each appellant has beensentenced to one year R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 323.
6. Looking to the fact that 18 years have passed, no purpose would beserved by re-sending the appellants into custody, hence the jail sentence underSection 323/34 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 22 daysand 9 days respectively.
7. The fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred)to Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) each.
8. The appellants shall deposit the enhanced fine amount within threemonths from the date of receipt of the order passed by this Court before thelearned Trial Court below. In default of payment of fine amount, each of the appellants shall undergo S.I. for three months. The order of trial Courtregarding property is maintained.
9. The record of the trial court along with the copy of the Order passed by this Court be returned back to the trial court.
10. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are hereby discharged.
11. With the aforesaid observations, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
ndDigitally signed by NIDHI DAVE Date: 2023.12.30 10:17:09 -08'00'
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)JUDGE