Madan And Ors. vs The State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 5609 MP

                                                          1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
                                               ON THE 6 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                           CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1697 of 2003

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    MADAN AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, S/O OF
                                CHAITRAM SOR R/O VILLAGE HINOTIYA KHURD
                                P.S. RAHATGARH, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SAGAR
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    MANJU @ PRAKASH S/O BALKISHAN, AGED
                                ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE HINOTIYA
                                KHURD P.S. RAHATGARH, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
                                SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    RAMMU @ RAMLAL S/O HARI PRASAD SOR,
                                AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE HINOTIYA
                                KHURD P.S. RAHATGARH, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
                                SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....APPELLANTS
                          (BY SHRI SANJAY KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. RAHATGARH,
                          DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI N.S.SOLANKI - PANEL LAWYER)


                                Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                          following:
                                                         JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.09.2003 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge in S.T. No. 338/2001 whereby the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 4/12/2023 12:03:52 PM

appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year each and fine of Rs. 500/- each with default stipulation.

2 . As per prosecution case, the present appellants looted the currency notes, golden ring and watch from the complainants.

3. During investigation, spot map was prepared, articles were seized and thereafter taking the statements of the witnesses in the matter, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and co-accused persons.

4. The prosecution has examined total 15 witnesses.

5. In defence, the appellants have examined two witnesses.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submits that he is not challenging the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court and his only prayer is that the appellants have already suffered the jail sentence of about 6 months, 9 months and 3 months. It is pertinent to note that this appeal is of the year 2003 and after about 20 years, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence as already undergone, looking to the fact and circumstances of the case. Thus, the ends of justice would be met if the jail sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them by enhancing the fine.

7. Learned counsel for the State has justified and supported the conviction and sentence passed by trial Court.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record along with the impugned judgment. It would be in the interest of justice, if the jail sentence of the appellants is

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 4/12/2023 12:03:52 PM

reduced to the period already undergone by them by enhancing the fine amount.

9 . Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial Court under section 411 of IPC is hereby affirmed. However, the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing fine of Rs. 20,000/- each.

10. The appellants are directed to deposit the enhanced fine amount within a period of 90 days from today, failing which, they have to undergo the sentence awarded by the trial court. The appellants are on bail, their bai l bonds are discharged subject to deposit of enhanced fine amount within stipulated period.

11 . The order of the learned trial Court regarding seized property stands confirmed.

12. Let record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action.

13. Appeal is finally disposed off.

Certified copy as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE MISHRA

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 4/12/2023 12:03:52 PM