Kallu vs State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 6548 MP

                                                          1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT GWALIOR
                                                   BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                               ON THE 24 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                           CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 268 of 2011

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    KALLU S/O BADRI KUSHWAH, AGED ABOUT 28
                                YEARS,    RESIDENT GRAM SILORI THANA
                                DHEERPURA,    DISTRICT DATIA  (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          2.    HARGOVIND S/O BADRI KUSHWAH, AGED ABOUT
                                20 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GRAM SILORI THANA
                                DHEERPURA,    DISTRICT  DATIA   (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    RAMLAL @ RAMLA S/O BADRI KUSHWAH, AGED
                                ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GRAM SILORI
                                THANA DHEERPURA,DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA
                                PRADESH0

                          4.    SMT.MAYA W/O KALLU KUSHWAH, AGED ABOUT
                                25    YEARS, R/O   GRAM   SILORI   THANA
                                DHEERPURA,    DISTRICT  DATIA    (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....APPELLANTS
                          (SHRI MANOJ DWIVEDI- LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS )

                          AND
                          STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S.DHEERPURA, DISTRICT
                          DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI KULDEEP SINGH- LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                          RESPONDENT- STATE)

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

The appellants are present before this Court and marked their present. Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 4/24/2023 7:20:39 PM

They are duly identified by their counsel. Accordingly, condonation application IA No. 5380 of 2021 stands disposed of.

Instant criminal appeal under Section 374 of CrPC has been preferred by appellants challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8th March, 2011 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Seodha, District Datia in Sessions Trial No.09 of 2010, whereby appellants No. 1 to 3 have been convicted under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation whereas appellant no.4 has been convicted under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation (for causing

injuries to complainant Dinesh as well as to injured Swamisharan, Maniram and Saroj Bai) At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not challenge finding of conviction but he confines his argument to the quantum of sentence part only. It is contended that since occurrence has taken place in the year 2008 all of sudden, the appellants were on bail during trial and they have never misused the liberty granted to them, fine amount has already been deposited by them, therefore, it is prayed that jail sentence awarded to them for aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them by enhancing a suitable fine amount.

On the other hand, State Counsel opposed the contentions of counsel for appellants and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the appellants nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment as well as

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 4/24/2023 7:20:39 PM

record.

It is not disputed that occurrence relates to year 2008, appellants was on bail during trial and they had never misused the liberty granted to them. Fine amount has already been deposited by them. Thus, looking to overall circumstances, it will be just and proper if sentence awarded to the the appellants by trial Court for aforesaid offence is reduced to the period already undergone by them by enhancing fine amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,000/- each.

Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the appellants for aforesaid offence, the sentence awarded to the appellants is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, sentence of fine amount is enhanced to Rs.3,000/- from Rs.1,000/- each in respect of offence under Section 323 of IPC. The fine amount, if any, deposited by appellants shall be adjusted in the enhance amount. Two months' time from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment is hereby granted to the appellants to deposit the aforesaid fine amount and the same shall be payable to complainant Dinesh, injured Swamisharan, Maniram and Saroj Bai) by way of compensation, failing which appellants shall undergo further one month additional imprisonment as awarded by the trial Court. Appellants are on bail, therefore, their bail bonds stand discharged.

Let a copy of this order along with record of trial Court be sent back forthwith.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE MKB

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 4/24/2023 7:20:39 PM

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 4/24/2023 7:20:39 PM