Arjun Kalar vs The State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 22331 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Arjun Kalar vs The State Of M.P. on 26 December, 2023

                                                                  1
                            IN      THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
                                                ON THE 26 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                               CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2134 of 2004

                           BETWEEN:-
                           ARJUN S/O. SUKHA NANDAN KALAR, AGED 28 YEARS,
                           R/O SABUDHANA P.S. CHICHOLI, TEHSIL & DISTRICT
                           BETUL, (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                               .....APPELLANT
                           (NONE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           P.S. CHICHOLI, DISTRICT BETUL M.P.

                                                                                             .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI VIVEK LAKHERA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.12.2004 passed by Special Judge Betul in Special Case No. 104/2003, whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 456, 354 &323 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one-one year and further directed to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each count with default stipulation.

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that accused-appellant on 22.04.2003 at about 9.30 pm. tresspassed into residential house of the prosecutrix and committed an offence under Section 354 of IPC. The appellant is also stated to have hit the husband

of complainant with fists and blows. The appellant was also tried for the offence under Section 3(1)(11) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, but was acquitted.

3. This Court has carefully gone through the evidence of PW/1 Sunita Bai, PW/2 Subelal, PW/3-Sunil, PW/4 Kamu Singh. PW/4 and PW/5 have turned hostile but the incident was supported by PW/1, PW/2 & PW/3.

4. After having perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is found that the findings recorded by the Trial Court upholding the guilt of the accused-appellant are impeccable and the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against the accused- appellant. There is nothing in cross examination of the witnesses that may demolish the prosecution case. Thus, there is nothing in the said findings of the trial court that can be said to be erroneous or perverse, warranting interference by this Court in Appellate

jurisdiction.

5. Thus, the conviction of the appellant as ordered by the trial court is hereby upheld.

6. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances that deserve to be taken in consideration so far as the sentence part is concerned. The appellant/accused is first offender and the incident took place in the year 2003 and accused/appellant has faced trial and this appeal is pending since 2003, the accused/appellant has been under trial or appearing before the Court as condition to suspension of sentence since long. Nothing has come on record regarding misuse of conditions of bail/suspension of sentence during the long period since the prosecution, trial and appeal are pending. Thus, this Court deems it fit to reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone by him (60 days) and to enhance the fine amount from Rs. 1000/- to Rs10,000/- excluded the amount already deposited.

7. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned conviction is maintained. However, the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period he has already undergone (60 days), subject to depositing the further fine amount of Rs.10,000/- within a period of three months from today.

8. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Court is not

deposited within a period of three months from today, then the original sentence would come into operation and appellant shall be taken into custody or he would surrender himself to serve the entire jail sentence of one year as awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.

9. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.

10. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, if any, are discharged.

11. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court record alongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary compliance.

12. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.

(VIVEK JAIN) V. JUDGE MISHRA