Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1108/2017 of MUNNALAL 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. 1108 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
MUNNALAL S/O SHRI LATORE KUSHWAH, AGED 57YEARS, R/O GRAM RAJ BARETHI, P.S. AMAYANDISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI DHARMENDRA RISHISHWAR - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION AMAYAN DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI ALOK SHARMA - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT
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.
ORDER
This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by theappellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated05.08.2017 passed by learned Special Judge, District Bhind inS.T.No.149/2015, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the appellant underSections 294, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act but has convicted theappellant under Section 323 IPC (3 counts) and sentenced to undergo one-oneyear RI with fine of Rs.1,000-1,000/-, with default stipulations.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant remained in custody for 2 days. It is also submitted that dispute arose from demarcation of the land. He further submits that his only prayer is that fine amount may beenhanced.
3. Learned counsel for the State has no objection if sentence of appellantis converted to undergone.
4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal ofrecord and in considered view of this Court, the trial Court has properlyrecorded the conviction of the appellant as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, hisconviction is hereby affirmed; however, regarding quantum of sentence, bysetting aside jail sentence and fine of the appellant, instead he is directed todeposit Rs.2000-2000/- on each counts as compensation under Section 357Cr.P.C in which the amount deposited in the trial Court shall be treated asdeposited as on ground of compensation, therefore, he shall deposit theremaining Rs.3000/- as compensation. If appellant deposit compensationamount as directed hereinabove within a period of 30 days from the date ofreceipt of certified copy of this order, as the jail sentence of appellant hasalready been suspended, his bail bonds shall stand discharged and if he fails todeposit the compensation amount, he has to undergo total jail sentence of fourmonths. The amount of Rs.500-500/- be given by the appellant to Narendra,Rekha and Brijendra as compensation by the trial Court. In para 33 ofjudgement dated 05.08.2017, it is mentioned that the appellant is a retired armyman, therefore, it is made clear that this order shall not adversely affect hispension benefits.
6. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of and rest of the impugnedjudgment is kept intact.
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned forinformation.
Adnan
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)JUDGE