Rajoo S/O Basantilal Banchhanda & Ors. vs The State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 21031 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajoo S/O Basantilal Banchhanda & Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 12 December, 2023

Author: Anil Verma

Bench: Anil Verma

                                                           1
                           IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                      BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                            ON THE 12 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                            CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 525 of 2005

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    RAJOO S/O BASANTILAL BANCHHANDA AGED
                                ABOUT 35 YEARS

                          2.    VISHNU S/O BAGADIRAM BANCHHADA, AGED
                                ABOUT 28 YEARS

                          3.    ASHOK S/O BHERULAL BANCHHADA, AGED
                                ABOUT 25 YEARS

                          4.    MAHESH S/O NIRMALA BAI, (DECEASED) AGED
                                ABOUT 25 YEARS

                                ALL R/O VILLAGE BARADIYA, P.S. MANASA,
                                DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....APPELLANTS
                          (BY MS. SHANNO KHAN - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. MANASA, DISTRICT
                          NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI SANTOSH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                          following:
                                                          JUDGMENT

Appellant No.4 Mahesh has been died during the pendency of this appeal, therefore, vide order dated 30.1.2006 the appeal stands abated against the Appellant No.4 Mahesh on account of his death.

1. The appellants No.1 to 3 have preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 30.4.2005 passed in S.T. No.9/2005 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Manasa, District Neemuch, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 399 & 402 of IPC and sentenced to 5 years R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/- and 2 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with usual default stipulation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of the discreet information given by the informant, Sub-Inspector Ajay Mishra (PW-7) along with the police party intercepted the 4 accused persons and two other co-accused

Suresh and Dilip fled away from the spot. Police recovered two different swords from the possession of appellant Raju and Vishnu, an iron rod has been recovered from the possession of appellant Ashok and Farsa has been recovered from the possession of appellant No.4 Mahesh (deceased) and some other articles have also been recovered from their possession.

3. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the JMFC, Manasa, District Neemuch (M.P.) who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Neemuch, which has been later on transferred to the Addl. Sessions Judge, Manasa, District Neemuch. Appellants/accused abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. Prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses, while the defence has examined two witnesses. Trial court after hearing both the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned hereinabove. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, appellants have preferred this appeal.

4. The appellants have preferred this criminal appeal on several grounds

but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants did not press this appeal on merit. She did not assail the finding part of the judgment. She has confined her arguments on the quantum of sentence only. Her sole prayer is that the imprisonment of the appellants be reduced to the period already undergone, as the appellants have already suffered more than 5 months' imprisonment and they are facing trial since 2004. The appellants are not having any criminal background. Therefore, their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the criminal appeal and prayed for its dismissal by submitting that trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants.

6. Learned counsel for both the parties heard at length and perused the entire record.

7. In view of the above submissions, although the conviction has not been challenged, perusal of the evidence also justified the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court.

8. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants appears to be just and proper. The appellants have suffered jail incarceration from 27.11.2004 to 18.5.2005. They are facing trial since last 19 years and they are not having any criminal

background. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants.

9. Having regard to the aforesaid, this criminal appeal is partly allowed by maintaining the conviction, but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants. The appellants are on bail, their bail and surety

bonds stand discharged.

10. The order regarding disposal of the property, as pronounced by the trial Court, is affirmed.

11. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with the record of the trial Court to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.

C.C. as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE trilok