CRIMINAL APPEAL 30/2007 on 16 May 2007

JUDGMENT

This appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (for short “Code”) assails the judgment and order dated07.09.2007 passed by learned Special Judge, Mandla, in Special Sessions CaseNo. 30/2007, whereby, the appellants have been convicted for the offence underSection 506(II) of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 monthsand fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation.

2. The incident relating to offence of threatening to kill and calling in thename of caste was reported to the Police Station Ghughari District Mandla on10.05.2007 which was registered on Crime No. 32/2007 under Sections 294,506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(5)X of SC/ST (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act. The investigation was set in motion and on its completion,charge sheet was filed. Learned trial Court after hearing the concerned partiesand on due appreciation of the evidence on record vide impugned judgment,convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned hereinabove.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants challenging the conviction andsentenced submits that the learned trial Court ignored serious anomalies,contradictions and omissions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. He hascommitted serious error of fact and law in recording the findings of guilt.Alternative limb of the argument is that appellants have remained in jail from12.05.2007 to 16.05.2007 i.e. 4 days. Incident occurred for more than 16 yearsback. They have no criminal antecedents. In view of this, a lenient view may betaken as regards to the sentence and the same may be reduced to the periodalready undergone by enhancing the fine amount.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that learned trial Court has passedthe judgment on due appreciation on evidence available on record, therefore,findings of conviction and sentence passed thereon needs no interferes is liableto be dismissed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The evidence adduced in support of the allegation with regard to offenceu/s. 506(II) of the IPC is found to be clear, cogent and consistent. The same isfree from any material infirmity and anomaly. The testimony of complainantSavitri Choudhary (PW-3) and Mageena @ Ramu Jhariya (PW-2) stands duly corroborated with first information report (Ex. P/4), therefore, it cannot beinferred that the learned trial Court has committed any error in recordingconviction for above offence against the appellants. Therefore, the convictionas recorded by the learned trial Court is hereby affirmed.

7. As regards the sentence, the prayer made on behalf of the appellantsappears to be reasonable. The incident took place near about 16 years back.Appellants have faced the trial from last near about 16 years. No criminalantecedents are attributed to the appellants. In such circumstances, the periodof sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone. The fineamount is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to 3000/- in each appellants. Appellants willhave to deposit the remaining enhanced amount of fine within a period of twomonths from the date of judgment passed by this Court, before the concernedtrial Court failing which the appellants will have to undergo RI for the threemonths.

8. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed on the point of sentence asmentioned herein above. The conviction of the appellants is maintained. Asregards the sentence, the same is reduced to the period already undergone. Theappellants are on bail. Their bail bonds and personal bonds are herebydischarged.

9. The record of the learned trial Court along with the copy of the judgmentbe sent back forthwith to the learned trial Court for compliance and necessaryaction.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)

V. JUDGE