Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1983/2018 of ARJUN SINGH KANJAR @ GUTHALA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWALON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1983 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
ARJUN SINGH KANJAR @ GUTHALA S/O MANGALSINGH KANJAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, VILL.CHUWAHI CHHANDA, P.S. MAJHAULI, (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE )
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. STATIONHOUSE OFFICER P.S. CHURHAT SIDHI (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI DILIP SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)
.....RESPONDENT
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the 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 has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction dated 08.02.2018 passed by the Learned 4th Addl.Sessions Judge, Sidhi in S.T.No.125/2013, whereby learned Judge found theappellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC anddirected to suffer R.I. for six months with fine of Rs.500/- with defaultstipulation.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,Crime No.77/2013 was registered against the appellant at Police Station Churhat, District Sidhi for commission of offence punishable under Sections392 of the IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filedbefore the competent Court.
3. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses andappreciating the evidence led by parties, learned trial Court has found him guiltyfor commission of offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC andsentenced him as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the impugnedjudgment, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant expressly gave up his challenge tothe findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellant isconcerned. In other words, learned counsel for the appellant accepted thefinding of conviction passed against the appellant, however, he challenged thequantum of punishment alone. It is submitted that the appellant is the onlyearning person in his family, he is the first offender and counsel assures that hewill not involve in such criminal activities in future. It is also submitted thathaving regard to all circumstances which resulted in appellant's conviction andfurther keeping in view the fact that the appellant was facing the trial before theconcerned Court since the date of his incarceration, therefore, he prayed thathis jail sentence be reduced suitably.
5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has submitted that afterappreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Court below haverightly found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence, therefore, nogrounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellant,hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entirerecord of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal in part upon finding some force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
7. Though the appellant has not made any attempt to assail the finding ofhis conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether thefindings of the Court below of conviction is legally sustainable or not, I perusedthe record and especially therein having so perused, I am satisfied that no caseis made out to interfere in the findings of the Court below on merits. From theperusal of the record, it reveals that the findings of the trial Court is based uponproper appreciation of oral and document evidence, therefore, upheld thefindings of conviction under Section 392 of the IPC recorded by the trial Court.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant,natures of the substance, its quantity and period of jail sentence alreadyundergone by him and this appeal is pending since 2018 and the appellant isfacing trial since 2013, I am of the considered view that the ends of justicewould be met if the appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone byhim with some enhancement in the fine amount.
9. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned convictioni s hereby maintained. However, the jail sentence imposed on appellant isreduced to the period already undergone by him, which is about 4 months andthe sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.2,000/-. In default ofpayment of enhanced fine amount, the appellant shall suffer 3 month R.I. He bereleased forthwith, subject to payment of fine and if not required in any othercase. Amount of fine, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted.
10. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal appeal standspartly allowed and disposed of.
11. Let a copy of this order alongwith record be sent to the court below for information and necessary compliance.
12. The enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of one month from today.
Certified copy as per Rules.
sh
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)JUDGE