Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1260/2013 of GYANSINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWALON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1260 of 2013
BETWEEN:-
GYANSINGH S/O BALUSINGH KIRAR, AGED ABOUT 32YEARS, NAIHEDA, P.S. JEERAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI SHIVENDRA SINGH RAWAT, ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT. THROUGHP.S. RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY MS. HARSHLATA SONI, PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed thefollowing:
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
The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 374 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction andsentence dated 22.08.2013 passed by the Special Judge [Scheduled Castes &Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act] in Special Sessions TrialNo.50/2012, whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission ofoffences punishable under Sections 456 & 354 of the Indian Penal Code andsentenced to undergo 06 months' rigorous imprisonment along with fine ofRs.1,000/- and 06 months' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.3,000/-with default stipulation. The appellant has also been convicted under Sections 323 & 506 and sentenced to fine of Rs.1,000 - 1,000/- with default stipulation.
02. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submits that he is notchallenging the impugned judgment on merits and is confining his argument tosentence only.
03. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record ofthe case.
04. So far as conviction is concerned is concerned, I have gone throughthe evidence adduced by the prosecution and examined it minutely. Perusal ofoverall evidence on record reveals that the learned trial Court did not commitany error in convicting the appellant under Sections 456, 354, 323 & 506 of theIPC. Hence, findings recorded by the trial with respect to the conviction areaffirmed.
05. So far as sentence is concerned, the trial Court has sentenced theappellant with 06 months' R.I. along with fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 456of the IPC and 06 months' R.I. along with fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 354of the IPC. The trial Court has sentenced the appellant under Sections 323 &506 of the IPC with fine only. It is submitted that the incident occurred on20.02.2012 and there are no criminal antecedents of the appellant. It is alsourged that the appellant has remained in custody from 28.02.2012 to 01.03.2012and from 27.01.2015 to 25.02.2015. On the above grounds, it is also urged thatthe appellant be sentenced with the period already undergone by him and thefine amount may be enhanced under Sections 456 & 354 of the IPC.
06. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant issentenced with the period already undergone by him and the fine amount isenhanced to Rs.5,000/- under Section 456 of the IPC and Rs.10,000/- underSection 354 of the IPC and in default, 03 months' R.I. under each sections.
After realization of above fine amount, the prosecutrix be given Rs.15,000/- ascompensation.
07. Appellant is directed to deposit the aforesaid fine amount within aperiod of three months from today, failing which he shall surrender before thetrial to undergo the remaining sentence of imprisonment. Fine amount, if anydeposited earlier, shall be adjusted against the enhanced fine amount.
08. In the result, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicatedabove.
Ravi
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)JUDGE