Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Singh Thakur vs The State Of M.P. on 27 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 27 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1412 of 2001
BETWEEN:-
RAJESH SINGH THAKUR, S/O RAM SINGH THAKUR,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, VILLAGE MACHGAVA, POLICE
STATION WARA-UNNAVA, U.P. AT PRESENT R/O 493,
KOTRA SULTANABAD, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH.
.....APPELLANT
(NONE FOR THE APPELLANT )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH POLICE
STATION KAMLA NAGAR, BHOPAL.
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI NARENDRA LODHI - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing, this day, th 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 24.08.2001
passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class in Session Trial No.112/2001
whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant for commission of
offence under Section 452 and 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs.100/- respectively.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 07.02.2001, at around 09.00
p.m. in the night, the accused persons Kapil and Rajesh approached the Clinic
of complainant. When the complainant was examining Kapil Kumar, then the
present appellant is stated to have got hold of complainant and hit him with
knife. When his wife Asha Gupta came to his rescue, the present appellant is
said to have hit her also with knife.
3. FIR was lodged against unknown assailants but in the Court statement,
it came on record that the co-accused Kapil was well-known to the
complainant. Consequently, co-accused Kapil has been acquitted of the
offences by the trial Court.
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. This Court has carefully gone through the evidence of the
material witnesses and eye-witnesses. The prosecution has examined PW-1
Dinesh Kumar and PW-8 Asha Gupta who are stated to be eye witnesses and
other witnesses. PW-1 Dinesh Kumar is the injured witness.
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
appellant/accused is first offender and the incident took place in the year 2001
and accused/appellant has faced trial and this appeal is pending since 2001, 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 (thirty days) and to enhance the fine amount from Rs.100/- to
Rs.5,000/-.
9. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The impugned conviction is
maintained. However, the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for the period he has already undergone (thirty days), subject to
depositing the further fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand only) 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.
12. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, 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 modification, this appeal is partly allowed and
disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
