Lakhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 22653 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Lakhan 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 VIVEK JAIN
                                            ON THE 28 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                           CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 239 of 2011

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    LAKHAN S/O KODULAL GOND, AGED ABOUT 45
                                YEARS, VILL. AAMDA THANA PATHROTA DISTT.
                                HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    GARIBDAS S/O SHRIRAM GOND, AGED ABOUT 35
                                Y E A R S , AAMDA,  P.S.PATHROTA,  DIST.
                                HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....APPELLANTS
                          (NONE)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
                          ITARSI DISTT. HOSHANGABA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI ANNOP SDONKAR - PANEL LAWYER)

                                Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                          following:
                                                         JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellants/accused against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28-12-2010 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge- Hoshangabad, in Session Trial No. 166/09 whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellants for commission of offence under Section 323/34 of IPC each and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on the date of incident on 03- 02-2009, the prosecutrix had gone to house of Shankar Thakur to get her wages and when she was returning then in the way, he found the accused persons in the agricultural land of Shankar Thakur who committed offence with her in terms of Section 376 (2)(N) and Section 323/34 of IPC only. The trial court after recording evidence acquitted all the accused person under Section 376(2) (N) of IPC but convicted under Section 323/34 only.

3. 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.

4. This Court has gone through the entire evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. The prosecution has examined Prosecutrix PW/6, medical witness PW/4-Dr. D.J. Brahmchari and other witnesses. Raghunath PW/1 and Bhagwan Singh PW/2 has turned hostile.

5. 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-appellants are impeccable and the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against the accused-appellants. 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.

6. Thus, the conviction of the appellants as ordered by the trial court is hereby upheld.

7. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances that deserve to be

taken in consideration so far as the sentence part is concerned. The

appellants/accused is first offender and the incident took place in the year 2009 and accused/appellants have faced trial and this appeal is pending since 2011 the accused/appellants have 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 appellants to the period already undergone by them (12 days) and to enhance the fine amount to Rs. 5000/- each.

8. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned conviction is maintained. However, the appellants/accused are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period he has already undergone (12 days), subject to depositing the further fine amount of Rs.5,000/- each within a period of three months from today.

9. 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.

10. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.

11. The bail bonds of the appellants/accused, if any, are discharged.

12. 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.

13. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed and

disposed of.

(VIVEK JAIN) V. JUDGE MISHRA