Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ghanshyam & 2 Ors. vs State Of M.P. on 29 December, 2023
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDOR E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 29 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1035 of 2009
BETWEEN:-
1. GHANSHYAM S/O BOTLAL KUMAWAT, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE, R/O GRAM KANGHATTI,
DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BOTLAL S/O NATHU KUMAWAT, AGED ABOUT
62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O
GRAM KANGHATTI, DISTRICT MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MANGIBAI W/O BOTLAL KUMAWAT, AGED
ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE R/O GRAM KANGHATTI,
DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI AK.SARASWAT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 12/29/2023
4:51:36 PM
2
APPELLANTS)
AND
STATE OF M.P. THRU. PS.PIPLYAMANDI, DISTRICT
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI TARUN PAGARE, LEARNED G.A. FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court
passed the following:
JUDGMENT
Appellants have filed this appeal under section 374 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated
31.08.2009 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge,
Mandsaur in Sessions Trial No.181/2008, whereby trial Court
has convicted appellants under section 498-A of the IPC and
sentenced appellant Ghanshyam with RI for two years with fine
of Rs.1,000/- and appellants Botlal and Mangibai with RI for 1-
1 year with fine of Rs.1000 - 1000/- respectively with further
default stipulation.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset, submits
that he is not challenging impugned judgment on merits and is
confining his argument to sentence only.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
record of the case.
4. So far as conviction is concerned, I have gone through the
evidence adduced by the prosecution and examined it minutely.
From perusal of overall evidence on record, it is clearly
established that learned trial Court did not commit any error in
convicting the appellants under section 498-A of the IPC.
Hence, findings recorded by the trial Court with respect to
conviction are affirmed.
5. So far as sentence is concerned, learned trial Court has
sentenced appellant No.1 under section 498-A of the IPC with
RI for two years and with fine of Rs.1,000/- with further default
stipulation and appellants No.2 & 3 under section 498-A of the
IPC with RI for one year each and with fine of Rs.1,000/- each
with further default stipulation. Perusal of record of the case
reveals that present incident relates to the year 2008. Appellant
No.2 is approximately 77 years old whereas appellant No.3 is
approximately 73 years old. Appellant No.1 has remained in
custody during trial from 05.08.2008 to 11.08.2008 but
appellants No.2 & 3 did not remain in custody for whatsoever
period.
6. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, appeal filed
by the appellants is partly allowed and appellant No.1 is
sentenced with the period already undergone and appellants
No.2 & 3 are sentenced with imprisonment till rising of the
Court. Fine imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-
each.
7. Appellants are directed to deposit aforesaid fine amount
within a period of three months from today, failing which they
shall surrender before the trial Court to undergo remaining
sentence of imprisonment. Fine amount, if any already
deposited, shall be adjusted against the enhanced fine amount.
8. In the result, appeal is partly allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
hk/
