Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/2495/2011 of DHANANJAY SINGRAUL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDION THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2495 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
DHANANJAY SINGRAUL, S/O SHRI RAM SUJANSINGRAUL, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATIONLABOUR, R/O SIMARAHA, P.S. JASO, DISTT. SATNA(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI DEVENDRA SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.P.S. JASODISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
(BY SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER)
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.
J U D G E M E N T
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21/10/2011
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagod, Distt. Satna, in S.T. No.58/2010, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offence underSection 365 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and fine ofRs. 1000/- with default stipulation.
2. The incident of abduction was reported to the Police Station Uchehara,District Satna, where F.I.R. (Ex.P/1) on Crime No.0/2009 under Section 365 ofthe IPC was registered and after that, Crime No.17/2009 was registered at P.S.Jaso, Distt. Satna. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.
Learned trial Court vide impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced theappellant as mentioned herein above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the finding of conviction andsentence submits that learned trial Court failed to notice serious anomalies,contradictions and omissions present in the testimony of prosecution witnessesand prays for acquittal. In the alternative limb of prayer he submits thatappellant has remained in jail from 1/5/2009 to 8/5/2009 i.e. 8 days. Incidentoccurred long 14 years back. He has no criminal antecedents, therefore, takinglenient view jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.
4. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and praysfor dismissal of this appeal stating that it is devoid of merits.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
6. The evidence adduced in support of the offence u/s. 365 of the IPC isfound to be clear, cogent and consistent. The same is free from any materialinfirmity and anomaly. The testimony of complainant Ved Kumari (PW/1)stands duly corroborated with first information report (Ex.P/1) lodged by her,therefore, finding of conviction cannot be interfered and is hereby affirmed.
7. As regards the sentence, the prayer made on behalf of the appellantappears to be reasonable. The incident took place on 5/3/2009, i.e. more than14 years back. The appellant faced trial and appeal during this long period oftime. No criminal antecedents are attributed to the appellant, therefore, theperiod of jail sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergoneby enhancing the fine amount.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of theappellant is affirmed. Jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.
The fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.5000/-. Appellant will haveto deposit the remaining enhanced amount of fine within a period of two monthsfrom the date of judgment passed by this Court, before the concerned trialCourt failing which the appellant will have to undergo R.I. for the three months.The appellant is on bail. His bail bond and personal bond stand discharged.9. Let record of the learned trial Court along with the copy of the judgment of this Court forthwith be sent back for compliance and necessary action.
C.C. as per rules.
m/-
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)JUDGE