Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Lakhan Chaturvedi 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. 247 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
RAM LAKHAN CHATURVEDI S/O SHRI VISHRAM
PRASAD CHATURVEDI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
VILLAGE SEMARIYA, P.S. TALA, TEHSIL AMARPATAN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN DUBEY- ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S. TALA
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI DINESH PATEL - 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
the judgment of conviction dated 21.12.2015 passed by the Learned Special
Judge, Satna in S.C.No.02/2011. whereby learned Judge found the appellant
guilty for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC and directed to
suffer R.I. for six months with fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,
Crime No.841/2009 was registered against the appellant at Police Station Tala,
District Satna for commission of offence punishable under Sections 325/34,
323/34, 294 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act. 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 acquitted the
appellant from the offence punishable under Section 294 and 323/34of IPC and
Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act and found him guilty for commission of
offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC and sentenced him as
mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the appellant
has preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant expressly gave up his challenge to
the findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellant is
concerned. In other words, learned counsel for the appellant accepted the
finding of conviction passed against the appellant, however, he challenged the
quantum of punishment alone. It is submitted that the appellant is the only
earning person in his family, he is the first offender and counsel assures that he
will not involve in such criminal activities in future. It is also submitted that in
the same incident, there is cross-case registered against Triveni Prasad Saket in
S.T.No.67/2012, a copy of the judgment dated 21.12.2015 is also filed as
Annexure A/1, wherein accused has been convicted under Section 447 of the
IPC with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. He further submitted that
looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, appellant can be punished
with fine only. It is also submitted that having regard to all circumstances which
resulted in appellant's conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the
appellant was facing the trial before the concerned Court since the date of his
incarceration, 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 Court below have
rightly found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence, therefore, no
grounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellant,
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 appellant.
7. Though the appellant has not made any attempt to assail the finding of
his 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 under Section 325 of the IPC recorded by the trial Court.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant,
natures of the substance, its quantity and period of jail sentence already
undergone by him and this appeal is pending since 2016 and the appellant is
facing trial since 2011, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice
would be met if the appellant is sentenced for till rising of the Court and 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 appellant is
reduced to the period till rising of the Court and the appellant will surrender
before the trial Court to undergo the sentence till rising of the Court and
deposit the fine amount within a period of 45 days and the sentence of fine is
enhanced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.8,000/-. In default of payment of enhanced fine
amount, the appellant shall suffer 3 month R.I. He be released forthwith, subject
to payment of fine and if not required in any other case. 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.
11. Let a copy of this order alongwith record be sent to the court below
for information and necessary compliance.
12. The enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the appellant within
a period of 45 days from today.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
sh
