Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1633/2001 of HIMMAT SINGH & ORS Vs THE STATE OF M.P. on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWALON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1633 of 2001
BETWEEN:-
1.HIMMAT SINGH & ORS, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.MADAN S/O HIMMAT SINGH, AGED ABOUT 24YEARS, VILLAGE KHAIRPANTHA, P.S. MOHGAON,TEH.- SHONSAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY MS. SHIKHA BAGHEL - ADVOCATE )
.....APPELLANTS
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. MOHGAON,DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI DINESH PATEL - DY. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
.....RESPONDENT
This appeal coming on for final hearing 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.
ORDER
This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. againstthe judgment of conviction dated 19.09.2001 passed by the First AdditionalSessions Judge, Chhindwara in S.T. No.174/1999, whereby learned Judgefound the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 ofIPC and directed to suffer R.I. for one year and six months with fine ofRs.3,000/- each with default stipulations.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,
Crime was registered against the appellants at Police Station Mohgaon, DistrictChhindwara for commission of offence punishable under Sections 324/34 and307/34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filedbefore the competent Court.
3. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses andappreciating the evidence led by parties, learned trial Court found the appellantsguilty for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 of IPC and sentencedthem as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, theappellants have preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants expressly gave up their challenge tothe findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellant isconcerned. In other words, learned counsel for the appellants accepted thefinding of conviction passed against the appellants, however, he challenged thequantum of punishment alone. It is submitted that the appellants are the onlyearning person in their family, they are the first offender and counsel assuresthat they will not involve in such criminal activities in future. It is also submittedthat having regard to all circumstances which resulted in appellants' convictionand further keeping in view the fact that the appellants were facing the trial sincethe year 1999 and this appeal is pending since 2001, therefore, he prayed thattheir jail sentence be reduced suitably.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that afterappreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Courts below haverightly found the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offence, therefore, nogrounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellants,hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire record 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 appellants.
7. Though the appellants have not made any attempt to assail the findingof their 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 finding of the trial Court is based onproper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence therefore, upheld thefindings of conviction of appellants under Section 324/34 of IPC recorded bythe Court below.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants andperiod of jail sentence already undergone by appellants, which is about 12 daysas on date and the fact that they have no previous criminal antecedents andlooking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of theconsidered view that the ends of justice would be met if the appellantssentenced for the period already undergone by them with some enhancement inthe fine amount.
9. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned convictioni s hereby maintained. However, the jail sentence imposed on appellants isreduced to the period already undergone by them and the sentence of fine isenhanced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/- under Section 324/34 of IPC, whichshall be deposited within a period of one month. In default of payment ofenhanced fine amount within the stipulated period, the appellants shall suffer 1month R.I. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged. Amount of fine, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted.
10. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal appeal stands partly allowed and disposed of.
Let a copy of this order alongwith record be sent to the court below forinformation and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per Rules.
Sateesh
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)JUDGE