Raju vs The State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 20385 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Raju vs The State Of M.P. on 4 December, 2023

Author: Maninder S. Bhatti

Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti

                                                             1
                           IN      THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                              ON THE 4 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                            CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1773 of 2001

                          BETWEEN:-
                          RAJU @ MUNDYA S/O SHRIPAT, AGED ABOUT 22
                          YEARS, BY CASTE BOUDH, R/O BAHADURPUR, TAHSIL -
                          BURHANPUR, P.S. LALBAG, DISTRICT - KHANDWA,
                          MADHYA PRADESH

                                                                                           .....APPELLANT
                          (BY SHRI J.A. SHAH - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY MS. SARITA TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER )

                                 This Appeal coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the
                          following:
                                                            JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the

Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5.10.2001 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in S.T. No. 244 of 1996 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs. 5000/-, with default stipulations.

2. The counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant does not want to press his conviction recorded by the trial Court, however, it is submitted that the ends of justice would be met, if the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced

to the period already undergone.

3. The counsel for the State has supported the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court.

4. Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment and other material on record, since counsel for the appellant has not pressed upon the conviction of the appellant, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of IPC is hereby affirmed.

5. So far as sentence is concerned, the incident took place 31 years ago, in the considered view of this Court, no fruitful purpose is going to be served

by again sending the appellant to the jail after about 31 years of the incident, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice if the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone and fine amount is enhanced.

6. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial Court under Section 324 of IPC is hereby affirmed. The jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone and fine amount is enhanced from Rs.5000/- to Rs. 8000/-.

7. The appellant is directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court concerned within 30 days from today. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged subject to deposit of aforesaid fine amount.

8. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary action.

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE

PB