Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dhananjay Singraul 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 BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 29 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2495 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
DHANANJAY SINGRAUL, S/O SHRI RAM SUJAN
SINGRAUL, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION
LABOUR, R/O SIMARAHA, P.S. JASO, DISTT. SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI DEVENDRA SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.P.S. JASO
DISTT. SATNA (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:
JUDGEMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21/10/2011
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagod, Distt. Satna, in S.T. No.
58/2010, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under
Section 365 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and fine of
Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.
2. The incident of abduction was reported to the Police Station Uchehara,
District Satna, where F.I.R. (Ex.P/1) on Crime No.0/2009 under Section 365 of
the IPC was registered and after that, Crime No.17/2009 was registered at P.S.
Jaso, Distt. Satna. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.
Learned trial Court vide impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the
appellant as mentioned herein above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the finding of conviction and
sentence submits that learned trial Court failed to notice serious anomalies,
contradictions and omissions present in the testimony of prosecution witnesses
and prays for acquittal. In the alternative limb of prayer he submits that
appellant has remained in jail from 1/5/2009 to 8/5/2009 i.e. 8 days. Incident
occurred long 14 years back. He has no criminal antecedents, therefore, taking
lenient view jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.
4. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and prays
for dismissal of this appeal stating that it is devoid of merits.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
6. The evidence adduced in support of the offence u/s. 365 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 Ved Kumari (PW/1)
stands duly corroborated with first information report (Ex.P/1) lodged by her,
therefore, finding of conviction cannot be interfered and is hereby affirmed.
7. As regards the sentence, the prayer made on behalf of the appellant
appears to be reasonable. The incident took place on 5/3/2009, i.e. more than
14 years back. The appellant faced trial and appeal during this long period of
time. No criminal antecedents are attributed to the appellant, therefore, the
period of jail sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone
by enhancing the fine amount.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the
appellant is affirmed. Jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.
The fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.5000/-. Appellant will have
to deposit the remaining enhanced amount of fine within a period of two months
from the date of judgment passed by this Court, before the concerned trial
Court failing which the appellant will have to undergo R.I. for the three months.
The appellant is on bail. His bail bond and personal bond stand discharged.
9. Let record of the learned trial Court along with the copy of the judgment of
this Court forthwith be sent back for compliance and necessary action.
C.C. as per rules.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
m/-
