Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/5830/2020 of DHARMENDRA @ DHARAM 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 JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAFON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5830 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
DHARMENDRA @ DHARAM S/O PHOOLCHANDDIWAKER, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:UNEMPLOYED R/O KHAIRANJI, P.S. PARASIYA DISTT.CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY MS. SHIKHA MALIK-ADVOCATE )
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S. PARASIYADISTT. CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI PRASANNAJEET CHATERJI)
.....RESPONDENTS
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.
JUDGEMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order ofsentence passed by learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act) Chhidwara in SpecialCase No.2000011/2007 on 6.11.2020 whereby the appellant has been convictedunder Sections 354 and 456 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 6-6 months R.I. and fine of Rs.500-500/- and in default, to further undergo 1-1months RI.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that theprosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial, the appellant remained in custody since 6.1.2007 to 18.1.2007 and 20.10.2020to 2.11.2020. He prayed for acquittal of the appellant.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Statesupported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved theincident and the learned sessions Court has rightly convicted the appellant underSections 354 and 456 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal ofrecord, it appears that victim lodged a report against the appellant at Out Post -Rawanvada, Police Station-Parasia, Distric- Chhindwara which was registeredas Crime No.5/2007 and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed underSection 456, 354, 323, 294 and 506 of the IPC and 3 (1)(xi) of the SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989. The prosecution had examined sevenwitnesses. PW3-Victim duly narrated the incident and involvement of theappellant. Her statement is supported by PW1-Smt. Veena. Learned SpecialJudge acquitted the appellant from the charges punishable under Section 294,506 Part I and 3 (1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,however, convicted under Sections 354, 456 of the IPC and sentenced as statedherein above. The judgment of conviction is based on due appreciation ofevidence and after perusal of record, I do not find any reason to interfere in thefindings of the learned Special Judge. Consequently, the judgment of convictionand the conviction under Section 354 and 456 of the IPC are upheld.
5. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year2007, the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of theappellant on record, appellant remained in custody for 28 days, there is nominimum sentence has been prescribed under Sections 354 and 456 of Indian
Penal Code, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellant to theextent of the period which he has already undergone and accordingly, the jailsentence is reduced. However, fine is enhanced from Rs.500-500/- to Rs.3000-3000/-. The appellant shall deposit the enhanced amount within a period of twomonths from today. The appellant is on bail, his personal bond and bail bondbe discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
6. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of thejudgment.
P/-
(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE