Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1381/2014 of GOLU @ NILESH 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 INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGHON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1381 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
GOLU @ NILESH S/O ASHOK, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,OCCUPATION: LABOUR RAVISHANKAR COLONY(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ANURAG VYAS - ADVOCATE THROUGH LEGAL AID)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSEOFFICER THRU. P.S. MAHANKAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI KAPIL MAHANT - 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.
JUDGMENT
This Criminal appeal has been filed under section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
being aggrieved by judgement dated 03.09.2014 passed by learned 11[th ]A.S.J.,Ujjain in S.T.No.457/2011 whereby the appellant/accused has been convictedunder section 324 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of oneyear, in addition to a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine,appellant/accused shall further undergo R.I. for a term of 6 months.
2. The facts in brief are that the appellant/accused - Golu @ Nilesh wastried for the offence punishable under Section 341, 294, 307, 307/34 of the IPC
regarding incident that was happened in the night of 15.02.2011 at around 10:45
PM regarding which Crime No.339/2011 was registered at Police Station -Mahakal, District Ujjain.
3. Trial Court acquitted the appellant/accused Golu @ Nilesh from theoffence punishable under Sections 341, 294 and 307 of the IPC but convictedhim under Section 324 of the IPC as it is not compoundable.
4. This appeal has been preferred challenging the order of conviction andsentence but learned counsel for the appellant Shri Anurag Vyas has confinedhis arguments on the quantum of sentence only.
5. The learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has supported theconviction and sentence.
6. From perusal of the judgment dated 03.09.2014 and testimony of theprosecution witnesses, the findings of the trial Court regarding conviction of theappellant/accused under Section 324 of the IPC does not call for interferencehence, the conviction against appellant/accused under Section 324 of IPC isaffirmed.
7. From perusal of trial Court judgment it also appears that the appellantwas only 18 years 4 months old as his date of birth in Exhibit-D/3 is mentionedas 17.10.1992. The appellant/accused Golu @ Nilesh has already undergone aperiod of 207 days.
8. In view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed and conviction ofappellant/accused under Section 324 of IPC is hereby affirmed. The finding ofthe trial court regarding the sentence of imprisonment is modified to the periodalready undergone i.e. 207 days. The sentence of fine and default stipulationdoes not call for interference.
9. Accordingly, criminal appeal stands disposed of.
10. Record of the court below along with a copy of this order be sent forthwith for information and compliance.
VS
(GAJENDRA SINGH)V. JUDGE