Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lucky Namdev 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. 3789 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
1. LUCKY NAMDEV S/O RAM SEWAK NAMDEV,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O VILL-BADAKPUR PS-
HINDORIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAJJU @ RAJENDRA KUAMR NAMDEV S/O
PURSHOTTAM LAL NAMDEV, AGED ABOUT 46
YE A R S , R/O VILL-BADAKPUR PS-HINDORIYA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI S.K. MISHRA - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. PS HINDORIYA
DAMOH` (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI R.P. PRAJAPATI - PANEL LAWYER)
This appeal coming on for final heairng 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 06.12.2016 passed by the Learned Second
Addl. Judge, Damoh in S.T.No.300033/2016, whereby learned Judge found the
appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 of the IPC
and directed to suffer R.I. for one year default stipulation.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,
Crime No.241/2015 was registered against the appellants at Police Station
Hindoriya, District Damoh for commission of offence punishable under
Sections 294, 307, 324/34 of the 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 has acquitted the
appellants from the offence punishable under Section 294 and 307 of the IPC
and found him guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section
324/34 of the IPC and sentenced him 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 their 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 the family, this is the first offender and counsel assures that
they will 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, they prayed that
the 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 324/34 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 this appeal is pending since 2016 and
the appellants are facing trial since 2015, I am of the considered view that the
ends of justice would be met if the appellants is sentenced for the period
already undergone by them, with imposing fine amount upon the appellants.
9. 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, which is about 37 days by
appellant no.1 Lucky Namdev and appellant no.2 Raju @ Rajendra Kumar
Namdev is 67 days, and the sentence of fine is imposed to Rs.5,000/-. In
default of payment of enhanced fine amount, the appellants shall suffer 3 month
R.I. 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.
12. The imposed fine amount shall be deposited by the appellants within
a period of one month from today.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
V. JUDGE
sh
