Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/10703/2019 of VIBHASH @ VIVAS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWALON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10703 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
VIBHASH @ VIVAS S/O SHRI EAJU @ VIJAY SIKDHAR,AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASTE BANGALILABOURER DRILLING CAMP PATHAKHEDA P.S. SARNIDIST. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI PRADEEP NAVERIYA - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S. P.S.SARNI DIST. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.REKHAN MARSKOLE D/O SANDAL MARSKOLEVILLAGE DHADHAWARI PS SARNI DISTT.BETUL(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DINESH PATEL - DY. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for heairng this day, th e 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
This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. againstthe judgment of conviction dated 04.12.2019 passed by the learned SpecialJudge (SC/ST Act) Betul, District Betul in S.T. ACR No.200038/2015, wherebylearned Special Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence punishableunder Section 457 of the IPC and directed to suffer R.I. for six months withfine of Rs.500/-, under Section 354 of the IPC and directed to suffer R.I. for six months with fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 323 of the IPC and directedto suffer R.I. for three months with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,crime was registered against the appellant at Police Station Sarni, District Betulfor commission of offence punishable under Sections 457, 354, 323, 506-II ofIPC and 3(1)(11) of SC/ST Act. After completion of investigation, charge-sheethas been filed before the competent Court.
3. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses andappreciating the evidence led by parties, learned trial Court found that theappellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 457, 354and 323 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above. Being aggrievedwith the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred this criminal appealbefore this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant expressly gave up his challenge tothe findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellant isconcerned. In other words, learned counsel for the appellant accepted thefinding of conviction passed against the appellant, however, he challenged thequantum of punishment alone. It is submitted that the appellant is the onlyearning person in his family, he is the first offender and counsel assures that hewill not involve in such criminal activities in future. It is further submitted thatincident was of 07.12.2011 and at that time there was no minimum sentenceprescribed under Section 354 of IPC but the said Section was amended from03.02.2013 wherein one year of minimum sentence has been prescribed underSection 354 of IPC. He further submitted that It is also submitted that havingregard to all circumstances which resulted in appellant's conviction and furtherkeeping in view the fact that the appellant was facing the trial before the concerned Court and this appeal is pending since 2019, therefore, he prayedthat his jail sentence be reduced suitably.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that afterappreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Court below haverightly found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence, therefore, nogrounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellant,hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entirerecord of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal in part upon finding someforce in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
7. Though the appellant has not made any attempt to assail the finding ofhis conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether thefindings of the Court below of conviction is legally sustainable or not, I perusedthe record and especially therein having so perused, I am satisfied that no caseis made out to interfere in the findings of the Court below on merits. From theperusal of the record, it reveals that the findings of the trial Court is based uponproper appreciation of oral and document evidence, therefore, upheld thefindings of conviction under Sections 457, 354 and 323 of the IPC recorded bythe trial Court.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant,natures of the substance, its quantity and period of jail sentence alreadyundergone by him which is about 5 days and this appeal is pending since 2019,I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if theappellant is sentenced for the period already undergone by him with someenhancement in the fine amount.
9. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned convictioni s hereby maintained. However, the jail sentence imposed on appellant isreduced to the period already undergone by him and the sentence of fine isenhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.4,000/- under Section 457 of IPC, sentence offine is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.4,000/- under Section 354 of IPC andsentence of fine is enhanced from RS.500/- to Rs.1,000/- under Section 323 ofIPC which shall be deposited within a period of one month. In default ofpayment of enhanced fine amount within the stipulated period, the appellantshall suffer 1 month R.I. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.Amount of fine, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted.
10. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal appeal standspartly allowed and disposed of.
11. Let a copy of this order alongwith record be sent to the court below for information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per Rules.
Sateesh
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)JUDGE