Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lalmani Bais vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 28 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 776 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
1. LALMANI BAIS S/O VINDHESHWARI PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST
2. VINOD KUAMR BAIS S/O LALMANI, AGED ABOUT
25 YEARS, OCCUPATION - LABOUR
3. SMT. SAVITRI BAIS W/O SHRI LALMANI BAIS,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O VILLAGE TALA PS-MAJHAULI,
DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI RAMAYAN PRASAD PATEL - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PS
MAJHAULI, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI R.P. PRAJAPATI - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against
the judgment of conviction dated 10/02/2017 passed by the Second Additonal
Sessions Judge, Sidhi in Sessions Trial No.30/2015, whereby the appellants
have been convicted under Section 201 (Part 3) of IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 1 year and also under Section 177 of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for one month along with default stipulations.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,
Crime was registered against the appellants at Police Station Majhauli, District
Sidhi for commission of offence punishable under Sections 306, 177, 201 and
34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before
the competent Court.
3. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and
appreciating the evidence led by parties, learned trial Court found the appellants
guilty for the offence punishable and sentenced them as mentioned above.
Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the appellants have preferred this
criminal appeal before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants expressly gave up his challenge to
the findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellants is
concerned. In other words, learned counsel for the appellants accepted the
finding of conviction passed against the appellants, however, he challenged the
quantum of punishment alone. He further submits that the appellants are the first
offenders and have no criminal past. It is also submitted that having regard to all
circumstances which resulted in appellants' conviction and further keeping in
view the fact that the appellants are facing the trial since the year 2006 and
appeal is pending since 2015, therefore, he prayed that the jail sentence of
appellants be reduced suitably.
5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has submitted that after
appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Court below has
rightly found the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offence, therefore, no
grounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellants,
hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire
record of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal in part upon finding some
force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.
7. Though the appellants have not made any attempt to assail the finding
of their conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether the
findings of the Court below of conviction is legally sustainable or not, I perused
the record and especially therein having so perused, I am satisfied that no case
is made out to interfere in the findings of the Court below on merits. From the
perusal of the record, it reveals that the finding of the trial court is based on
proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence therefore, this Court
uphelds the recording of conviction of appellants under Section 201- Part 3 and
Section 177 of IPC as recorded by the Court below.
8. From perusal of the record, it is evident that appellant No.1 Lalmani
Bais has undergone custody from 13.01.2015 to 02.03.2015 (i.e. about 50
days), appellant No.2 Vinod Kumar Bais has undergone custody from
13.01.2015 to 07.08.2015 (i.e. about 7 months) and appellant No. 3 Savitri Bais
has undergone custody from 13.01.2015 to 02.03.2015 (i.e. about 50 days).
9. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and
period of jail sentence already undergone by them as mentioned herinabove and
the fact that the appellants have no previous criminal antecedents and this
appeal is of the year 2007 and looking to the facts and circumstances of the
present case, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met
if the appellants are sentenced for the period already undergone by them with
enhancement in fine amount.
10. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned conviction
i s hereby maintained. However, the jail sentence imposed on appellants is
reduced to the period already undergone by them. As far as fine amount is
concerned, for offence under Section 201 -Part 3 of IPC, fine amount is
enhanced from Rs.5,00/- to Rs.1,000/- and for offence under Section 177 of
I.P.C., fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.2,000/-, which shall be
deposited by the appellants within one month from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. In default of payment of fine amount by appellants
within the stipulated period, the appellants shall suffer 1 month R.I. Appellants
are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
11. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal appeal stands
partly allowed and disposed of.
Let a copy of this order alongwith record be sent to the court below for
information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
V. JUDGE
Vikram
