Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/714/2016 of KEDARI 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. 714 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
KEDARI S/O SHRI SUNDARLAL DHAKAD, AGED ABOUT30 YEARS, R/O VISHANWADA P.S. BAMORI, DISTRICTGUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR TYAGI - ADVOCATE )
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION BAMORI, DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SMT. KALPANA PARMAR - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT
This appeal coming on for 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
Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. beingaggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20/7/2016passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, District Guna in S.T.No.158/2014; whereby, learned trial Court while acquitting the appellant fromcharge of offence under Section 326 of IPC instead, convicted him forcommission of offence under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced him toundergo one year RI with fine of Rs. 7,000/- and in default of payment of fineto further undergo 6 months RI.
2 . Although this appeal has been filed on merits but today, learned counsel for the appellant 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 beenpressed 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 appellant as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, hisconviction is hereby affirmed; however, regarding quantum of sentence, whilereducing the jail sentence of present appellant to the period already undergoneby the appellans which is 6 days, the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.7,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- and if fine amount as imposed by the trial Court has alreadybeen deposited by the appellant, same be adjusted. Out of the enhanced fineamount of Rs. 3,000/- to be deposited by the appellant, Rs. 2,000/- be paid tovictim - Vishnu as compensation and if necessary by summoning him. Ifappellant 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 appellant has already been suspended, his bail bonds shall stand dischargedand if he fails to deposit the fine amount, he has to undergo total jail sentenceof one month.
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.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)JUDGE