Hukum Chand vs State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 6297 MP

                                                         1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT GWALIOR
                                                   BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                              ON THE 19 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                           CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 191 of 2010

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    HUKUM CHAND S/O S/O JAGANNATH SAINI ,
                                AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOT
                                MENTIONED      R/O       VILL.BHARSULA
                                ROAD,RAGHOGARH, DISTRICT GUN A (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          2.    GOKUL @ RADHESHYAMJAGANNATH SONI,
                                AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOT
                                MENTIONED, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARSULA,
                                RAGHOGARH,     DISTRICT   GUNA (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    BABLU @ BABULALJAGANNATH SONI , AGED
                                ABOUT    28  YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
                                RESIDENT OF VILL-BHARSULA, RAGHOGARH,
                                DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....APPELLANTS
                          (SHRI RAJMANI BANSAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS)

                          AND
                          STATE  OF   M.P.THROUGH    POLICE   STATION
                          RAGHOGARH, DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENT
                          ( SHRI PRAMOD PACHAURI- LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                          RESPONDENT -STATE AND SHRI SS RAJPUT- LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
                          THE COMPLAINANT)

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

Instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of CrPC has been preferred by appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 4/20/2023 6:18:25 PM

sentence dated 2nd March, 2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Guna in Sessions Trial No.198 of 2008, whereby trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo six-six months rigorous imprisonment.

At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence has taken place as back as in the year 2008 all of sudden over the dispute of throwing latrine on the way and appellants have only served in custody a period of one day out of jail sentence awarded by trial Court and more than 15 years have lapsed, therefore, it is prayed that by imposing a suitable fine amount, the jail sentence

awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for State as well as complainant has opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded by the trial Court to appellants nor any compassion or sympathy is called for.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment passed by the Court below as well as record of the case.

It is not disputed that the occurrence relates to year 2008 and the appellants have so far served a period of one day in custody out of total jail sentence awarded by trial Court and so also, suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to over-all circumstances and the fact that the offence in question was committed nearly 15 years back, it will be just and proper that if by imposing a fine amount of Rs.5,000/- on each of the appellants, the jail sentence of six months RI awarded by the trial Court for

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 4/20/2023 6:18:25 PM

offence under Section 324/34 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants.

Accordingly, criminal appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining appellants' conviction for offence under Section 324/34 of IPC, the sentence awarded to appellants is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them with imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- on each of the appellants. The appellants are directed to pay amount of Rs.5,000/- each before the trial Court within a period of 15 days which shall be payable to the complainant as compensation. The appellants are on bail, therefore, their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged.

A copy of this judgment along with record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE MKB

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 4/20/2023 6:18:25 PM