Mutte @ Premnarayan Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 22667 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mutte @ Premnarayan Patel 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 BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                              ON THE 28 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                               CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 42 of 2017

                           BETWEEN:-
                           MUTTE @ PREMNARAYAN PATEL S/O CHOTELAL
                           PATEL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                           AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILLAGE BAMORA PAJAR, P.S.
                           BAHERIYA, DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI JITENDRA CHOURASIA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
                           BAHERIYA, DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....RESPONDENT/STATE
                           (BY SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER)

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

This criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short "Code") assails the judgment and order dated 20/12/2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sagar in ST no.3900409/2016, whereby appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 435 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months with fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation.

2. The incident relating to cause damage to the property of the complainant of more than Rs.50 by putting it on fire was reported to the Police Station

Baheriya, Distt. Sagar, where FIR (Ex.P/1) was registered on Crime No.

170/2016 for the offence under Section 435 of the IPC. The investigation was set in motion and on its completion, charge sheet was filed. Learned trial Court after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and on due appreciation of the evidence on record vide impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the conviction and sentenced submits that the learned trial Court has ignored serious anomalies, contradictions and omissions present in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. He has committed serious error of fact and law in recording the findings of conviction. Therefore findings of conviction recorded against the appellant is

not sustainable and appellant is entitled for acquittal. An alternative limb of prayer, he submits that incident took place near about more than 7 years back. There was loss of only Rs.500 to Rs.700/- for setting ablaze the wood. The appellant has no criminal past. In view of this, a lenient view may be taken as regards to the jail sentence and the same may be set aside by enhancing the fine amount.

4. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer opposed the prayer and submits that the impugned judgment is based on due appreciation of the evidence and needs no interference. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The evidence adduced in support of the allegation with regard to offence u/s. 435 of the IPC is found to be clear, cogent and consistent. The same is free from any material infirmity and anomaly. The testimony of complainant Laxmi Patel (PW/1) stands duly corroborated with first information report (Ex.P/1). It also finds support from the other witnesses examined by the prosecution.

Investigating Officer Vijay Sharma (PW/5) has also supported the prosecution case. In such circumstances, it cannot be inferred that the learned trial Court has committed any error in recording conviction for offence u/s. 435 of the IPC against the appellant. Therefore, the finding of the conviction for the abovementioned offence is affirmed.

7. As regards the sentence, the prayer made on behalf of the appellant appears to be reasonable. The incident took place near about 7 years back. The appellant has no criminal antecedent. Therefore, the period of jail sentence deserves to be set aside by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.2000/- to Rs.4000/-. The appellant will have to deposit the enhanced amount of fine within a period of 60 days from the date of judgment passed by this Court, before the concerned trial Court failing which the appellant will have to undergo SI for one month.

8. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed on the point of sentence as mentioned herein above. The conviction of the appellant is maintained. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds and personal bonds are discharged.

9. The original record of the learned trial Court along with the copy of the judgment be forthwith sent back to the learned trial Court for compliance and necessary action.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) V. JUDGE m/-