Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh 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. 1812 of 2010
BETWEEN:-
ASHOK S/O SHANKARLAL SAKET, AGED ABOUT 26
YEARS, RAJENDRA NAGAR GALI NO. 13, PS. KOTWALI
SATNA, DISTT. SATNA. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI UDAY RAJ MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH TH. PS. RAJENDRA
NAGAR DISTT. SATNA. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI VINAY SHARMA - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
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 18.08.2010
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Session Trial No.475/2009
whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant for commission of
offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 1 year.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the appellant and the
complainant are husband and wife. On 27.03.2009, the complainant/ wife had
given a written complaint to police mentioning that on 26.03.2009 at around
11:00 pm, the appellant and other family members of appellant abused the
complainant with bad utterances and assaulted her. Her husband hit her in the
head in the night at 11:00 PM and the other family members of the appellant
exorted the appellant to hit the complainant. She sustained injury on the temple
and arm. The charges were framed under Section 498-A of Dowry Act and 308
of IPC but the trial Court has convicted the appellant only under Section 323 of
IPC.
3. The present appellant was charge-sheeted for commission of offence
under Section 323 of IPC. Charges were framed against the appellant/accused.
Accused/appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
4. As per the evidence and the material adduced on behalf of the
prosecution, the Trial Court found the offence to be proved for offences as
mentioned in para-1 above.
5. This Court has gone through the entire evidence adduced on behalf of
the prosecution. The prosecution has examined Sunita (PW-3), Bitti Bai (PW-
6), Bhupendra (PW-5) and Puspendra (PW-8) and other witnesses. This Court
has carefully gone through the evidence of the material witnesses and eye-
witnesses.
6. 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.
7. Thus, the conviction of the appellant as ordered by the trial court is
hereby upheld.
8. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances that deserve to be
taken in consideration so far as the sentence part is concerned. The incident
took place in the year 2009 and accused/appellant has faced trial and this appeal
is pending since 2010, 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 Four months and three days and to
enhance the fine amount Rs.3000/-
9. 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 (Four months
and three days), subject to depositing the further fine amount of Rs.3,000/-
within a period of three months from today.
10. 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.
11. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
15. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, if any, are discharged.
16. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court record
along with copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for information
and necessary compliance.
17. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed and
disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
V. JUDGE
Prar
