Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1035/2009 of GHANSHYAM & 2 ORS. Vs STATE OF M.P. on 29 December 2023
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH A T I N D O R E BEFORE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDOR E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWALON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1035 of 2009
BETWEEN:-
1.GHANSHYAM S/O BOTLAL KUMAWAT, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O GRAM KANGHATTI, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.BOTLAL S/O NATHU KUMAWAT, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O GRAM KANGHATTI, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.MANGIBAI W/O BOTLAL KUMAWAT, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O GRAM KANGHATTI, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O GRAM KANGHATTI, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI AK.SARASWAT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANTS)
AND
STATE OF M.P. THRU. PS.PIPLYAMANDI, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI TARUN PAGARE, LEARNED G.A. FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- This appeal coming on for orders 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.
J U D G M E N T
Appellants have filed this appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 31.08.2009 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in Sessions Trial No.181/2008, whereby trial Court has convicted appellants under section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced appellant Ghanshyam with RI for two years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and appellants Botlal and Mangibai with RI for 1-–1 year with fine of Rs.1000 1000/- respectively with further default stipulation.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset, submits that he is not challenging impugned judgment on merits and is confining his argument to sentence only.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.
4. So far as conviction is concerned, I have gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution and examined it minutely. From perusal of overall evidence on record, it is clearly established that learned trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellants under section 498-A of the IPC. Hence, findings recorded by the trial Court with respect to conviction are affirmed.
5. So far as sentence is concerned, learned trial Court has sentenced appellant No.1 under section 498-A of the IPC with RI for two years and with fine of Rs.1,000/- with further default stipulation and appellants No.2 & 3 under section 498-A of the IPC with RI for one year each and with fine of Rs.1,000/- each with further default stipulation. Perusal of record of the case reveals that present incident relates to the year 2008. Appellant No.2 is approximately 77 years old whereas appellant No.3 is approximately 73 years old. Appellant No.1 has remained in custody during trial from 05.08.2008 to 11.08.2008 but appellants No.2 & 3 did not remain in custody for whatsoever period.
6. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed and appellant No.1 is sentenced with the period already undergone and appellants No.2 & 3 are sentenced with imprisonment till rising of the Court. Fine imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs.5,000/- each.
7. Appellants are directed to deposit aforesaid fine amount within a period of three months from today, failing which they shall surrender before the trial Court to undergo remaining sentence of imprisonment. Fine amount, if any already deposited, shall be adjusted against the enhanced fine amount.
8. In the result, appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
hk/