Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/2668/2011 of GOKAL PRASAD 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 VINAY SARAFON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2668 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
GOKAL PRASAD S/O MAHESH PRASAD MISHRA, AGEDABOUT 25 YEARS, VILL. KUTARI P.S. HATTA DIST.DAMOH (M.P)
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.P.S. HATTA(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI AJAY TAMRAKAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
.....RESPONDENTS
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.
JUDGMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction dated31.10.2011 passed by Special Session Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, Damoh in Special Case No.22/2007 whereby the appellant has beenconvicted under Section 353 of IPC and sentence to undergo R.I. for 6months and fine of Rs. 2000/- was imposed in default to further undergo onemonth S.I. and under Section 506-(II) of IPC and sentenced to undergo 3months R.I.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial,the appellant remained in custody from 17.02.2007 to 28.02.2007. He prayedfor acquittal of the appellant.
3 . Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Statesupported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved theincident and the learned Special Judge has rightly convicted the appellant underSections 353 & 506-II of IPC.
4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal ofrecord, it appears that on 08.02.2007, a report was lodged by Kanchhei Prasadagainst the appellant which was registered as Crime No. 55/07 at Police Station-Hatta, District- Damoh, under Sections 353, 294, 186, 506-B of Indian PenalCode and under Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The prosecution has examined 6 witnesses. PW-1 (KanchhediPrasad) narrated the incident and involvement of the appellant in the offence, heduly proved the offence against the appellant. Learned Special Judge afterconsidering the statements of the witnesses and record of the case on31.10.2011, acquitted the appellant from the offence punishable under Section3(1)(X) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, convictedunder Section 353, 506-II of IPC and sentenced as stated hereinabove. Afterexamining the statements of the witnesses and after perused the record, I do notfind any reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the learned SpecialJudge which are based on due appreciation of evidence and consequently, the judgment of conviction under Section 353 and 506-II of IPC are upheld.
5. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year2007, the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of theappellant on record, there is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Sections 353 and 506-II of Indian Penal Code, the appellant remained incustody from 17.02.2007 to 28.02.2007, I deem it proper to reduce the jailsentence of the appellant to the extent of the period which he has alreadyundergone and accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced. However, fine isenhanced from Rs.2000/- to Rs.5000/-. The appellant shall deposit theenhanced amount within a period of two months from today. The appellant ison bail, his personal bonds and bail bonds be discharged. Accordingly, theappeal is partly allowed.
6 . Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of thejudgment.
Shub
(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE