Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramdhari Yadav 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. 5649 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
1. RAMDHARI YADAV S/O RAMADHIN YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O. VILL. AJGURH P.S. MORVA
DISTT. SINGRAULI (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAMJATAN S/O RAMDHARI YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
R/O VILLAGE AJGURH, P.S.MORVA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI D.K. SHAH - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. POLICE
STATION MORVA DISTT. SINGRAULI (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - PANEL LAWYER)
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the 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 14.11.2017 passed by the Learned Special
Judge, Singrauli in S.C.No.67/2012 whereby learned Judge found the appellants
guilty for the offence punishable under Section 341 and 323/34 (two counts) of
the IPC and directed to suffer R.I. for three months with fine of Rs.1500/- each
with default stipulation.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,
Crime No.333/2012 registered against the appellants at Police Station Morva,
District Singrauli for commission of offence punishable under Sections 341,
294, 323, 506-II/34 of the IPC and Sections 3 (2)(v) of the SC ST Act. 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 has acquitted the
appellants from the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 Part-II of IPC
and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC ST Act and found them guilty for commission of
offence punishable under Section 341 and 323/34 (two counts of the IPC 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 the 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, they challenged
the quantum of punishment alone. It is submitted that the appellants are the only
earning persons in their family, this is the first offender and counsel assures that
theywill not involve in such criminal activities in future. 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 were facing the trial before the
concerned Court since the date of their incarceration, therefore, he prayed that
his jail sentence 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 have
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 appellant.
7. Though the appellants have not made any attempt to assail the finding
of his 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 findings of the trial Court is based upon
proper appreciation of oral and document evidence, therefore, upheld the
findings of conviction under Section 341 and 323/34 (2 counts) of the IPC
recorded by the trial Court.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants,
natures of the substance, its quantity and period of jail sentence already
undergone by them, which is about 7 days and this appeal is pending since
2017 and the appellants are facing trial since 2012, 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 some enhancement in the fine amount.
9. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned conviction
is hereby set-aside. However, the jail sentence imposed on appellants is reduced
to the period already undergone by them. They be released forthwith, subject to
payment of fine and if not required in any other case. Amount of fine, if any,
deposited earlier shall be adjusted.
10. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal appeal stands
partly allowed and disposed of.
11. 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
sh
