Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1208/2006 of BUNTY @ SUDAMA ASATI 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. 1208 of 2006
BETWEEN:-
BUNTY @ SUDAMA ASATI S/O KANIHAYA LAL ASATI @KANAI, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, ASATI WARD NO.1DI.DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI S.N. PANDEY - LEARNED AMICUS CURIAE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DI.DAMOH(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI DINESH PATEL - DY. GA.)
.....RESPONDENT
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. against the judgment of conviction dated 06.06.2006 passed by the Learned SecondAddl. Sessions Judge, Damoh in S.T.No.07/2001, whereby learned Judgefound the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and506 (Part-II) of the IPC and directed to suffer R.I. for 1 year with fine ofRs.1000/- with default stipulation.
2. Shri S.N. Pandey - Advocate, present in the Court and he has been requested to assist the Court as amicus curiae.
3. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,
Crime No.699/2000 was registered against the appellant at Police StationKotwali, District Damoh for commission of offence punishable under Sections294, 323, 354, 306 and 506-B of the IPC. After completion of investigation,charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court.
4. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses andappreciating the evidence led by parties, learned trial Court has found him guiltyfor commission of offence punishable under Section 323 and 506 (Part-II) ofthe IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with theimpugned judgment, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal before thisCourt.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant expressly gave up his challenge tothe findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellant isconcerned. In other words, learned counsel for the appellant accepted thefinding of conviction passed against the appellant, however, he challenged thequantum of punishment alone. It is submitted that the appellant is the onlyearning person in his family, he is the first offender and counsel assures that hewill not involve in such criminal activities in future. It is also submitted thathaving regard to all circumstances which resulted in appellant's conviction andfurther keeping in view the fact that the appellant was facing the trial before theconcerned Court since the date of his incarceration, therefore, he prayed thathis jail sentence be reduced suitably.
6. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has submitted that afterappreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Court below haverightly found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence, therefore, nogrounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellant,hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. 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 appellant.
8. Though the appellant has not made any attempt to assail the finding ofhis 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 findings of the trial Court is based uponproper appreciation of oral and document evidence, therefore, upheld thefindings of conviction under Section 323 and 506 (Part-II) of the IPC recordedby the trial Court.
9. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant,natures of the substance, its quantity and period of jail sentence alreadyundergone by him, which is about 45 days and this appeal is pending since2006 and the appellant is facing trial since 2000, I am of the considered viewthat the ends of justice would be met if the appellant is sentenced for the periodalready undergone by him with some enhancement in the fine amount.
10. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned convictionis hereby maintained. However, under Section 323 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC thejail sentence imposed on appellant is reduced to the period already undergoneby him, which is about 45 days and the sentence of fine under Section 323 isenhanced from Rs.500 to Rs.1,000/- and under Section 506-II from Rs.500/-toRs.1,000/-. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount, the appellant shallsuffer 3 month R.I. He be released forthwith, subject to payment of fine and if not required in any other case. Amount of fine, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted.
11. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal appeal standspartly allowed and disposed of.
12. Let a copy of this order alongwith record be sent to the court belowfor information and necessary compliance.
13. The enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the appellant withina period of one month from today.
Certified copy as per Rules.
sh
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)JUDGE