Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rama And Ors. vs The State Of M.P. 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. 381 of 2004
BETWEEN:-
1. RAMA S/O BABU LAL PATEL, AGED ABOUT 38
YEARS, (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RATTU S/O BABU LAL PATEL, AGED ABOUT 30
Y E A R S , GWARI BACK SIDE OF HATHNI
NARSSARY POLICE STATION DAMOH DEHAT
DISTRICT DAMOH MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHANDU YADAV S/O BALIRAM YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 26 YEARS, AAM CHOPRA POLICE SATION
DAMOH DEHAT DISTRICT DAMOH MP (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI MANISH AWASTHY - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH POLICE STATION - NOHTA,
DISTRICT - DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANOOP SONKER -PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellants - Rama, Rattu and Chandu being
aggrieved of the judgment dated 06.02.2004 passed by learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Damoh in Sessions Trial No.48/2001 whereby they are
convicted for offences punishable under Section 332 of the IPC and Section
26 of the Forest Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
year with fine of Rs.1,000/- (in default of payment of fine to further undergo
RI for three months) and rigorous imprisonment for three months with fine of
Rs.500/- (in default of fine, to further undergo RI for one month), respectively.
It is submitted that the appellants are first time offenders. They are not
habitual criminals. They should have be given benefit of probation under the
Probation of Offenders Act. It is further submitted that Rama and Rattu
remained in custody from 30.11.2000 to 09.12.2000 for a period of nine days
whereas Chandu remained in custody from 29.12.2000 to 04.01.2001 for seven
days. It is prayed that their conviction may be maintained but remaining of jail
sentence be treated as undergone.
This prayer is not opposed by Shri Anoop Sonker, learned Panel Lawyer
for the respondent/State.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that
this criminal appeal is pending since, 2004 against the judgment of conviction in
Sessions Case No. 48/2001 by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh
dated 06.02.2004, and pendency of this appeal itself is a part of harassment to
the appellants and also looking to the facts: that charges under Section 25 (1-b)
(1) and Section 27 of the Arms Act were not proved; similarly charges under
Section 394, 397 of the IPC were not proved before the trial Court; and looking
to the period of custody, the conviction part of the judgment is hereby
maintained but the sentence imposed by the impugned judgment on the
appellants is reduced to the period which they have already undergone in the
custody, subject to payment of additional fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand only) under Section 332 of the IPC and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five
Hundred only) under Section 26 of the Forest Act by each of the appellants.
The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are discharged.
The appeal is disposed of in above terms. Record be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ks
