Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neeraj Silavat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 29 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5558 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
1. NEERAJ SILAVAT S/O SHRI GUTTI LAL SILAVAT,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE PAIRVARA,
POLICE STATION KOTVALI, DISTRICT VIDISHA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. LAXMAN SILAVAT S/O SHRI GUTTI LAL SILAVAT,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE PAIRVARA,
POLICE STATION KOTVALI, DISTRICT VIDISHA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. BHARAT SINGH SILAVAT S/O SHRI GUTTI LAL
SILAVAT, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
PAIRVARA, POLICE STATION KOTVALI, DISTRICT
VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KHARE SILAVAT S/O SHRI GUTTI LAL SILAVAT,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE PAIRVARA,
POLICE STATION KOTVALI, DISTRICT VIDISHA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI B.K. TYAGI - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH POLICE STATION
KOTVALI, DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI GIRRAJ SONI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR )
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 (2) of
Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.10.2017 passed by IVth
Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha, District Vidisha in Session Trial
No.31/2010 whereby the appellants has been convicted under Section 323 (on
two counts) of the I.P.C and sentenced to undergo four months rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- on each count with default stipulation.
2 Learned counsel for the appellants/accused submitted that he does not
wish to challenge the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offence. As
regards sentence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that
appellants have suffered 4 days jail sentence and they have been facing agony of
trial since 2009 for a period of near about 14 years. Therefore, it is prayed that
sentence of the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone
while enhancing the fine amount suitably.
3. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment but he
has no objection on deciding the appeal on the point of sentence.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the
record, it is found that trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on
record and rightly convicted the appellants under Section 323(on two counts)
of the I.P.C. hence, conviction of the appellants under Section 323 (on two
counts) of the I.P.C. needs no interference.
6 . As regards sentence, looking to the facts and circumstances of the
case and evidence on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, ends of
justice would meet if while reducing the jail sentence of the appellants to the
period already undergone by them, the fine be enhanced to Rs.1000/- under
Section 323 (on two counts) of the I.P.C. each. Accordingly, while affirming
the conviction of the appellants under Section 323 (on two counts) of the I.P.C.
jail sentence o f the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by
them and fine amount is enhanced to Rs.1000/- under Section 323(on two
counts) of the I.P.C. each which shall be deposited by them within a period of
two months from today, failing which the appellants will have to suffer the
sentence as awarded by the trial Court. The fine amount if any, already
deposited by the appellants be adjusted against the aforesaid amount of fine.
The entire amount of fine deposited by the appellants be paid to the
complainant/injured as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
7. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Ahmad
