Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pappu vs State Of M.P. on 26 December, 2023
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 26th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.265 OF 2009
BETWEEN:-
1. PAPPU, S/O LAKHAN SINGH, AGED 24 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: CARPENTER, R/O VILLAGE.
DHUAN, POLICE STATION- GHATIGAON,
DISTRICT- GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KEDAR, S/O MANGAL SINGH, AGED 25 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: KASTKARI, R/O VILLAGE
MAHAMPUR, POLICE STATION- ANTARI,
DISTRICT- GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
........APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI PRADEEP KATARE- ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATION-
GHATIGAON, DISTRICT- GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
........RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ROHIT SHRIVASTAVA- PANEL LAWYER)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
As per the submission of learned counsel for the appellants, a ppellant
No.1- Pappu has already been undergone as per the order sheet dated
08/01/2015 of this Court, therefore, appeal is pressed only for appellant
No.2- Kedar. This appeal has been filed by the appellant No.2 against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24/03/2009 passed by
Special Judge (Atrocities Act), District- Gwalior (M.P.) in S.S.T.
No.09/2007, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as
under:-
Section Sentence Fine (Rs.) Default Stipulation
324/34 of IPC (two 1 Year RI 1000/- 3 Months RI
counts)
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that incident is of the year
2006 and more than 17 years have lapsed. Learned counsel for the
appellant No.2 by not pressing on conviction confined his argument only to
the point of sentence and prays that the sentence awarded to him be
modified to the extent that period already undergone by him would be
sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has no objection if the fine
amount is enhanced while reducing the jail sentence of the appellant.
4. Although appeal on merit is not pressed today but in the interest of
justice, record is seen and after going through the record and looking to the
facts conviction is found to be justified, hence, conviction is affirmed and
in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that while
affirming the conviction of the appellant No.2 under Section 324/34 of
IPC, jail sentence of the appellant No.2 is reduced to the period already
undergone by him but fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1000/- to
Rs.3000/- for the offence 324/34 of IPC (two counts) which shall be
deposited by him within a period of 30 days' from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order, failing which the appellant No.2 will have to
suffer the complete sentence as awarded by the trial Court. Out of the
additional fine amount of Rs.4000/- deposited by the appellant No.2,
Rs.1500/- each be given to the complainant-Bhura and injured- Lakhan as
compensation. Rest of the amount shall be treated as cost of the
prosecution.
5. In view of the above, this appeal is finally disposed of.
6. Let a copy of this order be sent alongwith the record to the concerned
Court for necessary compliance.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
V. JUDGE
RAHUL rahul
SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=eac942476567cd1b39b3da46068403462fdf82ab676d0cde4de
PARIHAR
e473fe77953f5, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=0275C4F803F94C47998BE5C534E21BDED910FD4AB9D1
59B55575E814D05B2EED, cn=RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR
Date: 2023.12.28 11:33:46 +05'30'
