Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/909/2018 of CHANDU BAIRAGI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANION THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 909 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
CHANDU BAIRAGI S/O SHRI JAGANNATH BAIRAGI,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O GRAM NONPURA P.SBAMORI, DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI S.K. MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION BAMORI, DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI GIRRAJ SONI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR )
.....RESPONDENT
This appeal coming on for hearing 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
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 (2) ofCr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.1.2018 passed by the SpecialJudge (Atrocities), Guna in Special Case No.1/2014 whereby appellant has beenconvicted under Sections 325 & 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 yearsrigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and 1 year rigorous imprisonmentwith fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively with default stipulation.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish tochallenge the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence. As regardssentence, it is submitted by learned counsel that the appellant has already suffered incarceration of 16 days and he has been facing agony of trial for thelast 13 years. Therefore, it is prayed that sentence of the appellants may bereduced to the period already undergone by them while enhancing the fineamount suitably.
3. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment, buthe has no objection on deciding the appeal on the point of sentence.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of therecord, it is found that trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence onrecord and rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 323 & 325 of IPC,hence, conviction of the appellant under Section 325 & 323 of IPC needs nointerference.
6. As regards sentence, looking to the facts and circumstances of the caseand evidence on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, ends of justicewould meet if while reducing the jail sentence of the appellant to the periodalready undergone by him, fine amount under Section 325 of IPC is enhancedto Rs.3,000/-. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of the appellant underSections 323 & 325 of IPC, jail sentence o f the appellant is reduced to theperiod already undergone by him and fine amount under Section 325 of IPC isenhanced to Rs.5,000/-, which shall be deposited by him within a period of twomonths from today, failing which the appellant will have to suffer the sentenceas awarded by the trial Court. The fine amount already deposited by theappellant be adjusted against the aforesaid amount of fine. The fine sentenceunder Section 323 of IPC is hereby affirmed. The entire amount of finedeposited by the appellants be paid to the complainant under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.
Ahmad
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)JUDGE