Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendra Singh 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. 2290 of 2007
BETWEEN:-
1. VIRENDRA SINGH S/O CHARLI RAJA BUNDELA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
CULTIVATOR R/O P.S. MALTHON TEHSIL KURAI,
DISTT. SAGAR (MP)
2. PANCHAM SINGH S/O CHARLI RAJA, AGED
ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CULTIVATOR
R/O P.S. MALTHON TEHSIL KURAI, DISTT. SAGAR
(MP)
3. NAIB SINGH @ MOHAN SINGH S/O CHARLI RAJA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
CULTIVATOR R/O P.S. MALTHON TEHSIL KURAI,
DISTT. SAGAR (MP)
.....APPELLANTS
(NONE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
MALHON TEHSIL KHURAI DISTT,SA P.S. MATHON
TEHSIL KURAI, DISTT, SAGAR (MP)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI VINAY SHARMA -PL FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)
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 appellants/accused persons against
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.10.2007
passed by 1st Additional Session Judge, Khurai in Session Trial No.253 of
2006, whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellants for
commission of offence under Section 353/34, 333/34 of IPC and sentenced
them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and further directed to pay
fine of Rs500/- with default stipulation and sentenced them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 3 years and further directed to pay fine of Rs2000/- with
default stipulation.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 22.03.2006, the Assistant
Engineer of Electricity Board went for recovery of dues of electricity. It was
found that electric connection in the house of father of the present appellants,
which had been disconnected previously was found to be connected
unauthorizedly. When the inspection team of electricity board tried to
disconnect the said unauthorized electricity connection, the appellants are said
to have assaulted and accused persons hurt the inspection team.
3. The present appellants were charge-sheeted for commission of
offences. Charges were framed against the appellants/accused.
Accused/appellants denied their 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 (PW-1) Bhagwan Singh Patel,
(PW-2) Rajkumar, medical witness P-5 and PW-7 and (PW-8) R.R Awasthi as
well 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-appellants are impeccable and the prosecution has succeeded in
proving the case against the accused-appellants. 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 appellants 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 of the appellants is concerned.
The incident took place in the year 2006 and accused/appellants have faced trial
and this appeal is pending since 2007, the accused/appellants have 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 appellants to the period already undergone by them (62 days each) and to
enhance the total fine amount to Rs 7,500/- each.
9. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned conviction
is maintained. However, the appellants/accused persons are sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for the period they have already undergone (62 days
each), subject to depositing the total fine amount of Rs.7,500/- 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 their original
sentence would come into operation and appellants shall be taken into custody
or they would surrender themselves to serve their entire jail sentence as awarded
by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.
11. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
12. The bail bonds of the appellants/accused persons, if any, are
discharged.
13. 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.
14. With the aforesaid, this appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
V. JUDGE
tarun
