Dinesh And Ors. vs The State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 1658 MP

                                                          1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
                                             ON THE 30 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                           CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 850 of 2003

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    DINESH, SON OF ANYA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.

                          2.    NABBU @ NABU S/O NATTHU, AGED ABOUT 20
                                YEARS,
                                BOTH RESIDENT OF PARADSINGHA, MULTAI,
                                DISTRICT - BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....APPELLANTS
                          (BY SHRI VIKASH JYOTSHI - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
                          MULTAI, DISTRICT BETUL (M.P.).

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI VINOD TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER)

                                T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                          following:
                                                           ORDER

This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.05.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multai, District Betul in S.T. No. 103/02 whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 147 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.10,000/-, under Sections 323/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and under Section 294 of IPC and sentenced to Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 1/31/2023 11:12:46 AM

undergo a fine of Rs.500/- each to both with default stipulation.

2. Allegation against the appellants are that on 01.01.2002 complainant Sadashiv (PW-2) had lodged the FIR against some unknown person on allegation that they have been thrown the stones on him and his friends when they were going to village Padarsingha with MLA. Dr. Sunilam to address the public meeting.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submits that he is not challenging the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court and his only prayer is that the appellants have already suffered the jail sentence of about 09 days each. It is pertinent to note that this appeal is of the year

2003 and after about 19 years, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence as already undergone, looking to the fact and circumstances of the case. Thus, the ends of justice would be met if the jail sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them with fine.

4. Learned Government Advocate for the State has justified and supported the conviction and sentence passed by trial Court.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record along with the impugned judgment. On perusal of record, it seems that the criminal case was registered in the year 2002 and the appellants have been facing criminal proceedings since last 22 years. Considering the nature of offence, gravity of injury and other circumstances as well as in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to reduce the period of jail sentence awarded to the appellants to the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 1/31/2023 11:12:46 AM

period already undergone by them, subject to depositing of fine amount.

6. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and the awarded jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants subject to depositing of fine amount if already not deposited.

7. The appellants are directed to deposit the fine amount (if already not deposited) within a period of 15 days from today, failing which, they have to undergo the remaining jail sentence awarded by the trial court. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall remain discharged subject to deposit the fine amount (if already not deposited) within stipulated period.

8. Let record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action.

9. Appeal is finally disposed off.

Certified copy as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE Amitabh

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 1/31/2023 11:12:46 AM