Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narayan 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 DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 26 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1899 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
NARAYAN S/O RAMGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
VILL. KANPURA P.S. CHHIPAWAD DISTRICT-HARDA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI KAMAL SINGH RAJPUT - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH P.S. CHHIPAWAD,
DISTRICT- HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY - PANEL LAWYER )
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal is filed, being aggrieved of judgment dated 27.06.2014,
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Harda (M.P.), in Sessions Trial No.05/2014,
whereby, learned trial Court convicted the appellant for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 325 of Indian Penal Code and has awarded sentence
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.5,000/- with
default stipulation.
2. The case of prosecution in short is that on 04.12.2013 at about 04:00
p.m. the appellant uttered filthy abuses to Kusum Bai near the house of
Sarpanch at village Kanpura, P.S. Chhipawad and he had also committed
marpeet with Lathi. Thereafter, the case was registered against the appellant.
After investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed. Trial Court after trial
convicted and sentenced the appellant as above, hence this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Court below
while convicting and sentencing the appellant has totally discarded the
prosecution evidence which are not trustworthy for the purpose of conviction
and sentence and appellant is facing criminal proceedings since last 9 years,
therefore, no useful purpose would be served to again send the accused /
appellant in jail.
4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the
prayer of appellant's counsel.
5. On perusal of record, it appears that appellant remained in custody
from 21.12.2013 to 01.02.2014 i.e. for 42 days.
6. The jail sentence of the accused/appellant had already been suspended
by the trial Court. Thereafter, jail sentence of accused/appellants has been
suspended by this Court on 22.07.2014 and he has been enlarged on bail.
7. Taking these facts into consideration and considering the period of
custody and also looking to the fact that this appeal is pending since 2014,
appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant is affirmed, however,
the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant,
subject to the condition that fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
thousand), is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten Thousand), as Rs.5,000/-
has already deposited by him balance amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be deposited
by the appellant before the trial Court within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment passed today, in default,
the appellant shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months.
8. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are hereby discharged subject
to payment of enhanced fine amount.
9. The order for disposed of the property i.e. ballam as it maintained.
10. In above terms, appeal is partly allowed and disposed.
11. Let record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this
order for information and necessary action.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
V. JUDGE
vai
