Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/12504/2022 of SMT. SHEELA 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 BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDION THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12504 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SMT. SHEELA W/O VEDVYAS TRIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 50YEAR S , OCCUPATION: GRAHANI G.P. MEMORIALSCHOOL KE PASS RANJHI POLICE STATION RANJHIJABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI R.L. PATEL - ADVOCATE )
.....APPELLANT
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DWARAARAKSHI KENDRA RANJHI ZILA JABALPUR(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.ROHNI PRASAD S/O LATE SHRI TEK SINGH, AGEDABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED R/OG.P. MEMORIAL SCHOOL KE PASS POLICE THANARANJHI JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(APPELLANT No. 1 BY MS. SHANTI TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER )
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 filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (or short "Code") assails the judgment and order dated09.12.2022 passed passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (PoA) Act,Jabalpur in SCATR No. 25 of 2015 whereby the appellant has been convictedfor the offences under Sections 452 & 323 read with Section 34 (four counts)of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/- and rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine ofRs.500/- respectively with default stipulations.
2. The incident was reported to the Police Station Ranjhi District Jabalpur(M.P.) where FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered on Crime No. 668/2014 underSection 452, 294, 323, 324, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(i)(x) ofSC/St (PoA) Act. The investigation was set in motion and on its completioncharge-sheet was filed. Learned trial Court after hearing the concerned partiesand on due appreciation of the evidence on record vide impugned judgment,convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned herein above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the conviction and sentencesubmits that the learned trial Court has failed to notice the serious anomalies,contradictions and omissions present in the testimony of prosecution witnesses.He has committed serious error of fact and law in recording the findings ofconviction. Therefore, appellant is entitled for acquittal. In the alternative limb ofprayer, learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant have no criminalantecedent, the incident took place more than 09 years back. Therefore, bytaking lenient view the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced tothe period till rising of the Court and the amount of fine may be enhanced.
4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State supports the impugned judgment andprays for dismissal of this appeal. prays for dismissal of this appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The evidence adduced in support of the allegation with regard to offenceunder Section 452 & 323 read with Section 34 of IPC is found to be clearcogent and consistent. The same is free from any material infirmity andanomaly. The testimony of injured witnesses namely Rohani Prasad (PW-2),under Section 452 & 323 read with Section 34 of IPC is found to be clearcogent and consistent. The same is free from any material infirmity andanomaly. The testimony of injured witnesses namely Rohani Prasad (PW-2),
Subhash (PW-4) and Bhanu Pratap (PW-10) stands duly corroborated withFirst Information Report (Ex.P-1) and also with the he medical evidence i.e.MLC reports (Ex.P-5, P-6, P-7 & P-8) and X-ray report (P-8). One injuredNirupa has not been examined but she sustained injuries in the incident which isfully proved by the statements of other injured eye-witnesses. Therefore, thefindings of conviction cannot be interfered with and is hereby affirmed.
7. As regards the sentence, prayer made on behalf of appellant appears to bereasonable. The incident took place more than 09 years back. The appellantfaced trial and appeal during these long period of 09 year. No criminalantecedents are attributed to the appellant, therefore, jail sentence for offenceunder Section 323/34 IPC is set-aside and the jail sentence for offence underSection 452 is reduced till rising of the Court..
8. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed on the point of sentenceaffirming conviction of the appellant. Jail sentence is modified as mentionedherein above. The fine amount imposed to the appellant for offence underSection 452 of IPC is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.4000/- and the fine amountfor offence under Section 323/34 IPC (four count) is enhanced from Rs.500/-(each count) to Rs.1000/- (each count). Meaning thereby the appellant will haveto deposit further enhanced amount of fine of Rs.2000/- with regard to theoffence under Section 323/34 IPC and Rs.3500/- for the offence under Section452 IPC. The enhanced amount amount of fine will be deposited by theappellants within a period two months form the date of judgment of this Courtbefore the learned trial Court, failing which, they will have to under go simpleimprisonment of one month each.
9. The appellant will surrender before the learned trial Court on 19.02.2024 at11:00 a.m. sharp for serving out the jail sentence till rising of the Court.If appellant fails to report before learned trial Court on the given date and time forserving out sentence till rising of the Court, the learned trial Court will be atliberty to take coercive action to secure the presence of the appellant for servingout the sentence. The appellant is on bail, her bail bond and personal bond shallstands discharged.
10. The record of the learned trial Court alongwith the copy of the judgementbe forthwith sent back to the learned trial Court for compliance and necessaryaction.
Amitabh
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)JUDGE