Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh @ Mukeem Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 29 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11145 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. MUKESH @ MUKEEM CHOUDHARY S/O DADDI
CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE BARHI, P.S.
NOUROZABAD DISTRICT UMARIYA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DADDI RAIDAS S/O BASOHARA RAIDAS, AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARHI POLICE STATION
NOUROZABAD DISTRICT UMARIYA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. RAKESH CHOUDHARY S/O DADDI CHOUDHARY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARHI POLICE STATION
NOUROZABAD DISTRICT UMARIYA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SWAROOPLAL @ CHHABBU RAIDAS S/O DADDI
RAIDAS, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LABOUR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARHI POLICE
STATION NOUROZABAD DISTRICT UMARIYA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI SHANKAR P.D. SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
NOUROZABAD DISTRICT UMARIYA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI R.P. PRAJAPATI - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 12/30/2023
12:07:41 PM
2
following:
ORDER
This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against
the judgment of conviction dated 22.11.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge,
Umariya in Special Case No.23/2016, whereby learned Sessions Judge found
the appellant No.1 & 2 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324/34
of IPC and directed to suffer S.I. for one year with fine of Rs.500/- and
appellants No.3 & 4 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC
and directed to suffer S.I. for one year with fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulations.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,
Crime was registered at Police Station Nourojabad, District Umariya against the
appellants No.1 to 3 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 341,
294, 326/34 and 324/34 (two counts) and against appellant No.4 under Section
506-II of 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 found the appellant
No.1 & 2 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 of IPC and
appellants No.3 & 4 under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced them 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 is the conviction of the appellant are
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. 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 since
the year 2016, therefore, he prayed that his 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 Courts 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 appellants.
7. Though the appellants have not made any attempt to assail the finding
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 finding of the trial Court is based on
proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence therefore, upheld the
findings of conviction of appellants No.1 & 2 under Section 324/34 of IPC and
appellants No.3 & 4 under Section 324 of IPC recorded by the Court below.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and
period of jail sentence already undergone by appellant No.1 which is about 14
days, appellants No.2 which is about 4 days, appellant No.3 which about 6
days and appellant No.4 which is about 2 days as on date and the fact that they
have no previous criminal antecedents and looking to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that the ends of
justice would be met if the appellants sentenced for the period already
undergone by them with some enhancement in the fine amount.
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 and the sentence of fine is
enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.4,000/- each, which shall be deposited within a
period of one month. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount within the
stipulated period, the appellants shall suffer 1 month R.I. Appellants are on bail.
Their bail bonds stand discharged. 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.
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)
JUDGE
Sateesh
