Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/2446/1999 of RAMLAL @ RAN NATH 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 VIVEK JAINON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2446 of 1999
BETWEEN:-
RAMLAL @ RAN NATH, SON OF CHINTU PAWAR, AGED44 YEARS, r/o. KATANG-TOLA, POLCIE STATIONRAMPYALI, TEHSIL WARASEONI, DISTRICTBALAGHAT. (MADHYA PRADESH)
(NONE)AND
.....APPELLANT
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(BY SHRI ATMARAM BAIN - DY. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
.....RESPONDENT
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
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant/accused against theimpugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.1999passed by Special Judge Waraseoni, District Balaghat in Special Criminal caseNo.78/96, whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant forcommission of offence under Sections 354 & 342 of IPC and sentenced himto undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and further directed to payfine of Rs.500/-.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the incident is said to have occurred on 01.10.1996. The prosecutrix was returning to her home and in theway the appellant met her and caught hold of her hand and asked her to go tohis house. He has threatened the complainant with her life due to which thecomplainant got afraid and went to home of the appellant. As per theprosecution version the appellant is alleged to have committed an offence ofSection 376 of IPC with the prosecutrix.
3. Initially the appellant was tried under Sections 376, 506-B 342 of IPCand Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After trial, the trialCourt has held that offence under Section 376 of SC/ST Act is not provedbecause the prosecutrix did not support the prosecution version but the trialCourt has convicted the appellant under Section 354 and 342 of IPC.
4. As per the evidence and the material adduced on behalf of theprosecution, the Trial Court found the offence to be proved for offences asmentioned in para-1 above.
5. This Court has carefully gone through the entire evidence adduced onbehalf of the prosecution. The prosecution has examined PW/1 prosecutrix,PW/2 Ramrao, PW/3- Beniram, PW/4 and PW/5 Sanjay and also otherwitnesses of the case
6. After having perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it isfound that the findings recorded by the Trial Court upholding the guilt of theaccused-appellant are impeccable and the prosecution has succeeded in provingthe case against the accused-appellant. There is nothing in cross examination ofthe witnesses that may demolish the prosecution case. Thus, there is nothing inthe said findings of the trial court that can be said to be erroneous or perverse,warranting interference by this Court in Appellate jurisdiction.
7. Thus, the conviction of the appellant as ordered by the trial court is hereby upheld.
8. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances that deserve to betaken in consideration so far as the sentence part is concerned. Theappellant/accused is first offender and the incident took place in the year 1996and accused/appellant has faced trial and this appeal is pending since 1999, theaccused/appellant has been under trial or appearing before the Court ascondition to suspension of sentence since long. Nothing has come on recordregarding misuse of conditions of bail/suspension of sentence during the longperiod since the prosecution, trial and appeal are pending. Thus, this Courtdeems it fit to reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period alreadyundergone by him ( two days) and to enhance the fine amount from Rs. 500/- toRs. 4000/- each offence.
9. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned convictionis maintained. However, the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergoimprisonment for the period he has already undergone (two days), subject todepositing the further fine amount of Rs. 4,000/- for each offence within aperiod of three months from today.
10. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Court is not deposited within a period of three months from today, then the originalsentence would come into operation and appellant shall be taken into custodyor he would surrender himself to serve the entire jail sentence of one year asawarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.
11. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
12. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, if any, are discharged.
13. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court record alongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for informationand necessary compliance.
14. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed anddisposed of.
MISHRA
(VIVEK JAIN)JUDGE