Dilip @ Piyush vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3221 MP

                                  - : 1 :-
                                                          CRA No.1268/2021



HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
    (SINGLE BENCH : HON. Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)

                        CRA No.1268/2021
        (Dilip @ Piyush S/o. Ramraj Yadav V/s. State of M.P.)

Date: 13.07.2021 :
      Appellant by Shri Sachin Parmar, Advocate.

      Respondent/State by Shri Siddharth Jain, Panel Advocate.
      With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard the
learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.
                                  ORDER

The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 29.1.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr. Case No.9000071/2016 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under :

Section & Act. Imprisonment Fine Amount Imprisonment in lieu of default of payment of the fine.

450 of the IPC       2 years RI          1,000/-       One        month
                                                       additional RI.
307 of the IPC       7 years RI          2,000/-       Two       months
                                                       additional RI.
506 Part II of the 6 months RI           1,000/-       One        month
IPC                                                    additional RI.
25(1-B(a) of the 1 years RI              1,000/-       One        month
Arms Act.                                              additional RI.
27 of the Arms 3 years RI                1,000/-       One        month
Act.                                                   additional RI.

As per prosecution story, on 23.10.2015 the complainant - Krishna Kumar Verma submitted a written complaint to the Addl. Director General of Police that the appellant used to work as Driver with him in the year 2012-2013 and thereafter he left the job and now he is giving threat of killing to kill the entire family and also

- : 2 :-

CRA No.1268/2021

demanding the money by sending messages to him in his mobile. One month ago, he sent the message that he would kill the entire family. On 23.10.2015 near about at 2.40 pm. the applicant along with his associates entered into his house forcibly and fired a gunshot but no one sustained any injury. After hearing the sound of gunshot, the relatives and neighbors came there, and the applicant and his associates fled away from the spot. The report was lodged on 24.10.2015 which was registered against the applicant and his associates for the offence punishable u/s. 307, 384, 452, 34 of the IPC vide Exh. P/15.

The police prepared a spot map and arrested the present appellant on 25.10.2015 and recovered a country made pistol and a live cartridge from his possession vide Exh. P/3. Accordingly, offence u/s. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was added. During investigation, the police has also added offence u/s. 66-A of the Information Technology Act against the applicant. After completing the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the appellant. The appellant denied the charges and pleaded for trial. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. In defence, the appellant did not examine any witness and simply pleaded that he has falsely been implicated in this case.

After appreciating the evidence came on record, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has acquitted the appellant from the charge u/s. 66-A of the Information Technology Act and from the charge u/s. 384/511 of the IPC, but convicted the appellant for the offence punishable u/s. 450, 307 and 506 Part II of the IPC and u/s. 25(1-B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced, as aforesaid. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has directed all the sentences to run concurrently. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.

Shri Sachin Parmar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the appellant was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 7.5.2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No.14051/2019 but he could not

- : 3 :-

CRA No.1268/2021

furnish the bail bond due to paucity of funds and remained in jail. Out of seven years' jail sentence he has already undergone 5 years and 7 months. Hence, he is not assailing the findings recorded by the trial Court on merit but praying that the jail sentence of 7 years awarded by the trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone as the appellant has already suffered the jail sentence awarded for all the offences except offence u/s. 307 of the IPC. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that even otherwise, the appellant has falsely been implicated for the offence under section 307 of the IPC because he was demanding the wages from the complainant . He is the first offender and in the jail also he has maintained his good conduct. No one said to have suffered any injury by the gun-shot and apart from that, he has not assaulted anyone. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed, and the jail sentence of 7 years be reduced to the period already undergone.

On the other hand, learned Panel Advocate appearing for the respondent/State opposes the aforesaid prayer by submitting that there is recovery of country made pistol and one live cartridge from the possession of the appellant. The incident took place in the house of the complainant, but it is correct that the appellant is a first offender and he has completed the jail sentence of 5 years and 7 months out of 7 years.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of court below.

It is correct that offence the appellant has been convicted under section 307 of the IPC because he fired the gun-shot, but no one sustained any injury. The appellant is facing the agony of trial and jail incarnation since 2015. This Court had granted bail, but he could not furnish the bail bonds due to the circumstances prevailing at that time. He is the first offender and there is no adverse report about his conduct in the jail. The genesis of crime i.e. sending of the threatening messages by the appellant has not been established. The trial Court

- : 4 :-

CRA No.1268/2021

should have adopted the reformative approach in respect of the accused who are first offenders. They should get a chance to come back in the society and live respectfully.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this appeal is partly allowed. The findings recorded by the trial Court are hereby confirmed, but the jail sentence of 7 years awarded by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. Subject to deposit of the fine amount, the appellant be released from the custody forthwith, if not required in any other cause.

With the aforesaid, this appeal stands disposed of.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE Alok/-

Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV Date: 2021.07.14 16:59:37 +05'30'