Nandkishore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 20612 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Nandkishore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 December, 2023

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

                                                           1
                          IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                            ON THE 6 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                           CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 540 of 2014

                         BETWEEN:-
                         1.    NANDKISHORE S/O SHRI VASISHT LONI, AGED
                               ABOUT   50   YEARS, VILL.  OOBARA P.S.
                               AMARPATAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    JIRIYA @ SOMVATI W/O SHRI NANDKISHORE
                               LON I VILL. OOBARA, P.S. AMARPATAN, DISTT.
                               SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    GOLAH @ RADHA D/O SHRI NANDKISHORE LONI
                               VILL. OOBARA, P.S. AMARPATAN, DISTT. SATNA
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....APPELLANTS
                         (BY SHRI AKHIL SINGH - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH P.S. AMARPATAN
                         SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI VINOD TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER

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

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.2.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-Amarpatan, District Satna in Sessions Trial No.75/2013 convicting the appellant No.1 for the offence under Sections 323 & 323/34 of the I.P.C and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- and simple imprisonment for three months with fine

of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month and fifteen days respectively whereas appellant Nos.2 & 3 have been convicted for the offence under Sections 323/34 & 323 of the I.P.C and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- and simple imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month and fifteen days respectively.

Appellant No.1 was arrested on 7.12.2012 whereas appellant Nos.2 & 3 were arrested on 2.12.2012 and their judicial remand was extended till 26.12.2012, therefore, they have remained in custody for about fifteen days and

the fine amount imposed upon them has already been deposited by them.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the period of custody of the appellant Nos.1 & 2 so also keeping in view the fact that this appeal is pending since 2014, the finding of conviction recorded by the Trial Court is affirmed but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them subject to payment of additional fine amount of Rs.2,000/- each to be deposited before the Trial Court and to be disbursed in favour of the injured/victim.

Looking to the fact that at the time of the incident, the age of appellant No.3 was 18 years, therefore, when the provisions as contained in Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 are taken into consideration then it is evident that Sub-Section (1) of Section 6 provides that when any person under twenty-one years of age is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable with imprisonment (but not with imprisonment for life), the Court by which the person is found guilty shall not sentence him to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the

nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it would not be desirable to deal with him under Section 3 or Section 4, and if the Court passes any sentence of imprisonment on the offender, it shall record its reasons for doing so.

In the present case, the reasons for recording conviction against the appellant No.3 are missing and, therefore, his period of jail sentence is declared to be undergone by him without enhancing any fine amount.

Appellants were on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed.

Let record of the Trial Court be sent back.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE amit