Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandan 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. 1935 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
1. CHANDAN S/O LAXMAN PRASAD GUPTA, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, KAJI MAHAL P.S. KOTWALI,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHANCHAL S/O LAXMAN PRASAD GUPTA, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, KAJI MUHAL P.S.KOTWALI,
DISTT.SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI ASEEM DIXIT - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
KOTWALI, DISTRICT - SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI DINESH PATEL - DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
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
t h e judgment of conviction dated 17.08.2012 passed by the learned First
Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T.No.189/2011, whereby learned Judge
found the appellant No.1 Chandan guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 324 of the IPC and directed to undergo RI for six months with fine of
Rs.2000/- and found the appellant No.2. Chanchal guilty for the offence
punishable under section 325 of the IPC and directed to under go RI for six
months with fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulations.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,
Crime No.285/2010 was registered against the appellants at Police Station
Kotwali, district Sagar for commission of offence punishable under Sections
326/34 and 506 (Part-II) 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 found appellant
No.1 Chandan guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 324
and appellant No.2 Chanchal for the offence punishable under Section 325 of
the IPC and sentenced them as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the
impugned judgment, the appellant has 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. It is submitted that the appellants are the only
earning person in their family, they are the first offender and counsel assures
that they will not involve in such criminal activities in future. Learned counsel for
the appellants further submits that they are the first offender and there is no
criminal past of the appellants. They are facing trial since 2011 and the appeal is
pending before the High Court since 2012. Therefore, it has been prayed that
the appellants be punished with fine only.
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, 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 findings
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 findings of the trial Court is based upon
proper appreciation of oral and document evidence, therefore, upheld the
findings of conviction appellant No.1 Chandan guilty for the offence punishable
under Section 324 of the IPC with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and the appellant No.2
Chanchal guilty for the offence punishable under section 325 of the IPC with
fine of Rs.5,000/- by the trial Court.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants,
however, looking to the facts that the incident is of the year 2010, the
prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellants on
record. No minimum sentence has been prescribed under Section 325 and 324
of the IPC, I deem it proper to modify the fine amount of the appellant No.1
Chandan from Rs.2,000/- to 4,000/- under Section 324 of IPC and appellant
No.2 Chanchal from Rs. 5,000/- to 9,000/- under Section 325 of IPC and in
default of fine, they have been directed to undergo RI for two months. The
amount of fine deposited by the appellants be paid to the victim as
compensation. The appellants will surrender before the trial Court to undergo
the sentence till rising of the Court and deposit the fine amount within a period
of one and half month from today. The appellants are on bail, their personal
bond and bail bond be discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
9. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal appeal stands
partly allowed and disposed of.
10. 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
K.S.
