Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/4117/2020 of DHANITA BAI 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 JABALPURBEFOREHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAFON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4117 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
DHANITA BAI W/O MAYADAS PANIKA, AGED ABOUT 45Y E A R S , R/O VILLAGE ADHIYARKHOH, P.S.SAMANAPUR, DISTT. DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH).
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS. SHIKHA BAGHEL - ADVOCATE, FOR SHRI VINAY KUMARSHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.AJAK DINDORI DISTT. DINDORI (MADHYAPRADESH).
2.HEERA SINGH @ HIRAN MASRAM S/O JHANGLUSINGH MASRAM, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/OVILLAGE ADHIYARKHOH, P.S. SAMANAPUR,DISTT. DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH).
(BY SHRI Y.D. YADAV - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
.....RESPONDENTS
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.
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Codeo f Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment of conviction and order ofsentence passed by the Special Judge, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, Dindori in SCATR No. 21/2017, dated 28.02.2020, whereby the learnedSpecial Judge has convicted the appellant under Sections 341 and 323 of theIndian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo 1 month's SI and fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to further undergo 7 days' SI for offence under Section341 of IPC and 1 year's RI and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, 1 month's RIfor offence under Section 323 of IPC. No separate sentence was imposedunder Section 3(2)(va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that thecomplainant has lodged a false report. It is submitted that prosecution has failedto prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. She remained in custody from30.05.2017 to 05.07.2017. She prayed for acquittal of the appellant.
3. Per contra, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of therespondent/State supported the judgment and argued that the witnesses haveduly proved the incident and involvement of the appellant in the offence andprayed that appeal be dismissed.
4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal ofrecord, it appears that FIR was lodged on 30.05.2017 by Hiran Masram againstthe present appellant at Police Station AJK, District Dindori, registered as CrimeNo. 16/2017, under Sections 341, 294, 506, 307 of Indian Penal Code andSections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
5 . Prosecution examined 10 witnesses. However, defence has notexamined any witness. PW-4 Hirasingh, PW-5 Hiriyabai and PW-7 Indrasinghnarrated the incident and involvement of the appellant in the offence. PW-8 Dr.A. K. Shrivastava and PW-9 Dr. Rajiv Dhurvey explained the injuries, however,accepted that the injuries were simple in nature. The learned Special Judge byjudgment dated 28.02.2020 convicted the appellant and sentenced her, as stated hereinabove.
6. After examination of the statements of the witnesses and perusal ofthe record, I find no reason to interfere in the findings of the learned SpecialJudge, as the same are based on due appreciation of evidence. Consequently,the conviction of the appellant under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian PenalCode and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 are upheld.
7. However, looking to the fact that the incident took place in the year2017, the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of theappellant on record, appellant remained in jail from 30.05.2017 to 05.07.2017,no minimum sentence is prescribed either under Section 323 or under Section341 of the IPC, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence awarded to theappellant to the extent of the period which she has already undergone andaccordingly, jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. However,fine amount is maintained. The appellant shall deposit the fine amount within aperiod of two months from today, if she has already not deposited. Theappellant is on bail, her personal bonds and bail bonds be discharged.Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
8. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of thejudgment.
vkt
(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE