Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/2268/2018 of DILIP DHAKAD Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGHON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2268 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
1.DILIP DHAKAD S/O SHRI PARIKCHHIT DHAKAD,AGED 32 YEARS, R/O VILL. KHERLI P.S.SABALGARH DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYAPRADESH)AGED 32 YEARS, R/O VILL. KHERLI P.S.SABALGARH DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYAPRADESH)
2.LOKENDRA DHAKAD S/O MAN SINGH DHAKAD,AGED 20 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KHERLI P.S.SABALGARH, DISTT. MORENA (MADHYAPRADESH)AGED 20 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KHERLI P.S.SABALGARH, DISTT. MORENA (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI MAHENDRA CHOUDHARY - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANTS
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION GOVERNMENT RAILWAY POLICE (BROADGAUGE) DISTT. GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI I.S.ASTHANA - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT
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 criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by theappellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated14.03.2018 passed by learned Special Judge (MPDVPK Act) and learnedSecond Additional Sessions Judge, District Gwalior in S.T.No.400016/2016,whereby both the appellants have been convicted under Section 411 IPC andsentenced them to undergo one-one year RI with fine of Rs.5,000-5,000/-each, with default stipulations.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No.1-DilipDhakad remained in custody for 2 days and appellant No.2-Lokendra Dhakaddid not remain in custody. It is also submitted that main accused-Manoj hasexpired as per para 2 of the judgement dated 14.03.2018. He further submitsthat his only prayer is that fine amount may be enhanced.
3. Learned counsel for the State has no objection if sentence ofappellants is converted to undergone.
4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal ofrecord and in considered view of this Court, conviction is affirmed but on thepoint of sentence, this appeal is partly allowed on the basis of sentenceundergone which is of 2 days in respect to appellant No.1 and there is nocustody period in respect to appellant No.2 as he was released on the same dayof arrest, by setting aside jail sentence of the appellants, fine amount of theappellants under Section 411 IPC is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.7,000/-each and if fine amount as imposed by the trial Court has already beendeposited by the appellants, same be adjusted. If appellants deposit fine amountas directed hereinabove within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt ofcertified copy of this order, as the jail sentence of appellants has already beensuspended, their bail bonds shall stand discharged and if they fails to depositthe fine amount, they have to undergo total jail sentence of four months.
6. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of and rest of the impugnedjudgment is kept intact.
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for information.
Adnan
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)JUDGE