Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/2867/2017 of GIRISH DARYANI 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. 2867 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
GIRISH DARYANI S/O SHEETAL DAS DARYANI, AGEDABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. S-3,SHIKHAR, PARISAR BAIRAGARH BHOPAL (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI MAYANK SINGH - ADVOCATE )
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S M.P NAGARBHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI AMIT SHARMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the 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.
J U D G M E N T
This Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (or short "Code") assails the judgment and order dated28.06.2017 passed passed by the learned 4[th] Additional Sessions Judge Bhopal(M.P.) in ST No. 595 of 2015 whereby, the appellant has been convicted for theoffence under Sections 323 and 342 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1000/- for each offence with defaultstipulations.
2. The incident was reported to the Police Station M.P. Nagar, Bhopal where
FIR (Ex.P-3) was registered on Crime No.1025/2014 under Section364/342/323/34 of IPC on the basis of Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-2) given bycomplainant Ram Prakash Singh (PW-2). The investigation was set in motionand on its completion charge-sheet was filed. Learned trial Court after hearingthe concerned parties and on due appreciation of the evidence on record videimpugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the conviction and sentencesubmits that the learned trial Court has committed serious error of law and factin recording the findings of conviction. Therefore, appellant is entitled foracquittal. In the alternative limb of prayer, learned counsel for appellant submitsthat appellant has no criminal antecedent. He remained in jail from 24.12.2014 to25.03.2015 i.e. 92 days. The incident took place near about 09 years back.Therefore, taking the lenient view, jail sentence may be reduced to the periodalready undergone by him.
4. Learned Government Advocate for the State supports the impugnedjudgment and prays for dismissal of this appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
6. The evidence adduced in support of the allegations with regard to offenceunder Section 323 & 342 of IPC is found to be clear cogent and consistent.The same is free from any material infirmity and anomaly. The testimony ofcomplainant Ramprakash Singh (PW-2) stands duly corroborated with FirstInformation Report (Ex.P-3) and also with the he medical report (Ex.P-7).Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the learned trial Court has committed anyerror in recording conviction for offence under Section 323 & 342 of IPC.Hence, the same is hereby affirmed.
7. As regards the sentence, prayer made on behalf of appellant appears to bereasonable. The incident took place 09 years back. . Appellant faced trial andappeal during this long period of time. No criminal antecedents are attributed tothe appellant. Therefore, period of jail sentence deserve to be reduced for theperiod already undergone.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of appellant underSection 323 & 342 of IPC is maintained, his jail sentence is reduced to theperiod already undergone. Appellant is on bail, his bail bond and personal bondshall stands 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 necessary action.
Amitabh
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)JUDGE