Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1912/2003 of SUNIL KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF M.P. on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFOREHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAFON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1912 of 2003
BETWEEN:-
SUNIL KUMAR S/O BABULAL SAHU AGED ABOUT 25YEARS, R/O PURANI BASTI, JUNNARDEO, P.S.JUNNARDEO, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SMT. KAMLESH SHARMA-ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF SHRIP.C.PALIWAL-ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH) THROUGHDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CHHINDWARA, MP
(BY SHRI PRASANNAJEET CHATERJI-PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for .hearing this day, the 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.
JUDGMENT
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 IInd Additional Sessions Judge in Special Case No.42/2002on 4.11.2003 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 354 ofIndian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo six months R.I. and fine ofRs.500/- and in default, to further undergo three months 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 did not remain in jail. 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 underSection 354 of Indian Penal Code.
4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal ofrecord, it appears that victim lodged a report on 17.5.2002 against the appellantat Police Station-Junnardeo District Chhindwara and registered as CrimeNo.125/2002 under Section 354 of the IPC and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. Prosecution examined seven witnesses. PW2-Suresh, PW3-Bablu, PW4-victim and PW5-Gyan narrated the incident and involvement of thepresent appellant. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering thestatements of the witnesses and material available on record acquitted theappellant from the charges punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, however convicted under Section 354 ofthe IPC and sentenced as stated herein above.
5. After perusal of record, it appears that the judgment of conviction isbased on due appreciation of evidence and does not require any interference.Consequently, the judgment of conviction and conviction under Section 354 ofthe IPC is upheld.
6. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year2002, the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of theappellant on record and there is no minimum sentence was prescribed underSection 354 of Indian Penal Code at that time of commission of offence, Ideem it proper to set aside the jail sentence of the appellant and accordingly, thejail sentence is set aside. However, fine is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.5000/-.
The appellant shall deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two monthsfrom today. The appellant is on bail, his personal bond and bail bond bedischarged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
7. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of thejudgment.
P/-
(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE