Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/46/2018 of PRAN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGHON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 46 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
PRAN SINGH S/O SHRI GHUMAN SINGH YADAV, AGEDABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVTERNMENTTEACHER, R/O VILLAGE BHILARI POLICE STATIONRANNOD THASIL KOLARAS DISTRICT SHIVPURI(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI JITENDRA TYAGI- ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION KOLARAS DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI ALOK SHARMA- PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT
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.
ORDER
Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. beingaggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09/11/2017passed by First Additional Session Judge, Shvipuri in S.T.No. 400288/2011;whereby, learned trial Court has convicted the present appellant forcommission of offence under Sections 452 and 324/34 and sentenced him toundergo four days RI with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively andin default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 months RI.
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a Government Teacher and co-accused who were convicted have not filed anyappeal, as the fine was imposed. It is submitted that there was counter casebetween the parties on the same incident which has been disposed of on theground of compromise as per paragraph 2 of the judgment dated 09/11/2017. Itis further submitted that as per para 3 of the judgment a quarrel was startedwhen one party went to take loan of Rs.5,000/- for pesticide. Appellant hasbeen acquitted by the Trial Court from the charge under Section 459 of IPC. Asper para 7 of the judgment, a compromise has been done between the party inwhich appellant has been acquitted under Section 294, 323/34 (five counts) and506 part II of IPC.
3 . Although this appeal has been filed on merits but today, learnedcounsel for the appellant pressed the appeal only regarding sentence part isconcerned and do not press the conviction part as mentioned above.
4. Learned counsel for the State expressed no objection if the aboveprayer is allowed.
5 . Although, conviction part of the impugned judgment has not been pressed on merits but to do substantial justice, judgment of the trial Court isperused, oral and documentary evidence seen and after perusing the judgmentas well as the record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has properlyrecorded the conviction of the appellant as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, hisconviction is hereby affirmed; however, regarding quantum of sentence, whilereducing the jail sentence of present appellant to the period already undergoneby the appellant which is 10 days, while maintaining the sentence of payment offine amount under Section 452 of IPC is enhanced from Rs.3,000/- toRs.5,000/-, for commission of offence under Section 324/34 of IPC, the fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- and if fine amount asimposed by the trial Court has already been deposited by the appellant, same beadjusted. If appellant deposit fine amount as directed hereinabove within aperiod of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, as thejail sentence of appellant has already been suspended, his bail bonds shallstand discharged and if he fails to deposit the fine amount, he has to undergototal jail sentence of one month.
6. It is hereby observed that the conviction and sentence passed againstthe appellant shall not adversely affect his service career as he is stated to be aGovernment Teacher.
7. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part with the above observations.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for information.
Pj'S/-
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)JUDGE