Badri And Ors. vs The State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 20900 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Badri And Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 11 December, 2023

Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

                                                            1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                             ON THE 11 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 556 of 2002

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    BADRI PRASAD DUBEY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
                                 R/O VILLAGE DIGODA DITT. TIKAMGARH
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    LALIT S/O SATYANARAYAN DUBEY, AGED ABOUT
                                 19 YEARS, R/O DIGODA DISTT. TIKAMGARH
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....APPELLANTS
                           (BY SHRI R.S. PATEL-ADVOCATE)

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

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI VIJAY PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER)

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

This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.03.2002 passed by Special Judge (SC & ST) Prevention of Atrocities Act, Teekamgarh in S.T. No.137/2000, whereby both the appellants have been convicted under Section 323 of IPC (two counts each) and sentenced to S.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/- (two counts each) and under section 506-B of IPC sentenced to RI for one year and fine of Rs.500/-, with default

stipulations.

2. The counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants do not want to press their conviction recorded by the trial Court, however, it is submitted that the ends of justice would be met, if the jail sentence of the appellants 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 appellants has not pressed upon the conviction of the

appellants, therefore, the conviction of the appellants is hereby affirmed.

5. So far as sentence is concerned, the incident took place 24 years ago, in the considered view of this Court, no fruitful purpose will be served by again sending the appellants to the jail after about 24 years of the incident, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice if the jail sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone and fine amount is enhanced.

6. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of both the appellants under Section 323 of IPC (two counts each) and under Section 506-B of IPC, recorded by the trial court is hereby affirmed. The jail sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone and the fine amount imposed upon both the appellants under Section 323 of IPC for causing hurt to Laxman is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/-, under Section 323 of IPC for causing hurt to Laxmibai is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/- and under section 506-B of IPC is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/-.

7. The appellants are directed to deposit the remaining fine amount

before the trial Court concerned within 45 days from today. The appellants are on bail, their 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.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE pb