CRA/10674/2019 of KRISHNA BAI Vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE on 29 December 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGHON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10674 of 2019

BETWEEN:-

KRISHNA BAI W/O DINESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 21YEA R S , OCCUPATION: LABOUR SANJAY NAGARBOLIYA PS GAROTH (MADHYA PRADESH)

(NONE FOR THE APPELLANT )

.....APPELLANT

ANDADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE GAROTH (MADHYAPRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

( BY SHRI KAPIL MAHANT - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENTSSTATE)

This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed theJ U D G M E N T

following:

This Criminal appeal has been filed under section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

being aggrieved by judgement dated 09.11.2019 passed by the II AdditionalSessions Judge, Garoth, District Mandsaur (M.P.) in S.T. No.95/20154whereby the appellant/accused had been convicted as under:-

2. Prosecution story in short is that an FIR was lodged by the appellantaccused in Police Station, Garoth, Mandsaur (Exhibit-P-6-C) against Balram @Balu whereby Crime No. 318/2009 was registered and after investigation a finalreport under Section 173 of the CrPC was filed upon which Sessions trial No.11/2010 was registered and Balaram @ Balu was tried under Section 376(1)and 506 of IPC. During the trial the appellant accused did not support theprosecution and a complaint was filed in which the appellant/accused has beenconvicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

3. This appeal has been preferred by challenging the conviction andsentence on the ground that the trial court has ignored the discrepancy in thestatement of the witnesses and committed error in passing the impugnedjudgment. Trial Court has grossly erred in not considering the submission of theappellant/accused.

4. Counsel for the respondent/State has supported the conviction andsentence.

5. Heard Shri Kapil Mahant, advocate appointed through Legal Aid andperused the record.

6. On perusal of the testimony of Umedhsingh Chauhan (PW-1) CivilReader to the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Garoth, Mandsaur, SitaramPatidar, (PW-2) Additional Public Prosecutor, Garoth, Manoj Tiwari, (PW-3),Civil Reader ADJ Court, Bhanpura to the Court of Additional District andSessions Judge, Bhanpura, Mandsaur, Neeraj Jain, (PW-4) Stenographer,Class-I to the Court of Additional Sessions Court, Garoth, Mukesh Mimrot,(PW-5), Deposition Writer to the Court of JMFC, Garot and Gopal Parmar,

(PW-6) Police Inspector, the findings of the trial Court recorded in paragraphs20, 21 and 22 does not call for any interference. Conviction of the appellantunder section 182, 211 of the IPC is affirmed.

7. Considering the fact that the appellant accused is a lady and she isfacing a trial since 2019 and looking to the facts and circumstances of the caseand the character of the appellant/accused as first offender, it is expedient torelease her on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation ofOffenders Act, 1958.

8 . The appeal is partly allowed and the findings of the trial Courtregarding the sentence is modified and instead of sentencing theappellant/accused at once it is directed that appellant/accused be released onbail entering into bond with surety of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousandonly) to the satisfaction of the trial Court within a period of 90 days to appearand receive sentence when called upon by the trial Court during a period of 3years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior.

9. With the aforesaid, the criminal appeal is disposed off.

rashmi

(GAJENDRA SINGH)JUDGE