Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/5361/2017 of SMT. RADHA 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. 5361 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
1.SMT. RADHA W/O SHRI PATIRAM KUSHWAH,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
2.PATIRAM S/O MANIK KUSHWAH, AGED ABOUT 46YEARS, OCCUPATION -KRASHI YEARS, OCCUPATION -KRASHI
ALL R/O SIDHPURA RAMPUR ROAD THANASABALGARH DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI ARUN PATERIYA- ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANTS
AND
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION SABALGARH DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
(BY SHRI ALOK SHARMA- 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
Appellants have filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. beingaggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10/11/2017passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Morena, District Morena in S.S.T.No.98/2012; whereby, learned trial Court while acquitting the appellants fromcharge of offence under Section 294, 336 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) ofScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, convicting the appellants for commission of offence under Section 325 of IPCand sentenced them to undergo one-one year RI with fine of Rs. 1,500-1,500/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1-1 month SI.
2 . Although this appeal has been filed on merits but today, learnedcounsel for the appellants pressed the appeal only regarding sentence part isconcerned and do not press the conviction part as mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel for the State expressed no objection if the aboveprayer is allowed.
4 . Although, conviction part of the impugned judgment has not been pressed on merits but to do substantial justice, judgment of the trial Court isperused, oral and documentary evidence seen and after perusing the judgmentas well as the record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has properlyrecorded the conviction of the appellants as mentioned hereinabove. Hence,their conviction is hereby affirmed; however, regarding quantum of sentence,while reducing the jail sentence of appellants to the period already undergoneby the appellants which is 3-3 days, the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1,500-1,500/- to Rs. 10,000-10,000/- and if fine amount as imposed by the trialCourt has already been deposited by the appellants, same be adjusted. Ifappellants deposit fine amount as directed hereinabove within a period of 30days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, as the jail sentenceof appellants have already been suspended, his bail bonds shall standdischarged and if they fail to deposit the fine amount, they have to undergototal jail sentence of one month. Out of the enhanced fine amount ofRs.17,000/-, Rs.8,000-8,000/- be given to victim Bharti and Sunita ascompensation, if necessary by summoning them, if compensation amount as imposed by the trial Court has already been given to the victim Bharti andSunita, same be adjusted.
5. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part with the above observations.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned forinformation.
Pj'S/-
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)JUDGE