Rambahadur Pandey vs The State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 449 MP

                                                           1
                           IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
                                                 ON THE 9 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 755 of 2001

                          BETWEEN:-
                          RAMBAHADUR S/O SHRI RAM GOPA PANDEY, AGED
                          ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE NEMUA, P.S. RAMPUR
                          BAGHELAN, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....APPELLANT
                          (NONE )

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH               P.S.   RAMPUR
                          BAGHELAN, DISTRICT SATNA (M.P.)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI N.S.SOLANKI -PANEL LAWYER)

                                T h is appeal coming on for order 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 appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.04.2001 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities) Satna in Special Case. No. 47/2000 whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a written complaint was made one Samaylal before the Pollce Station Rampur Baghelan alleging that the

Signature Not Verified apellant is abusing and voluntarily caused grievous injuries to him and also Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 1/12/2023 11:58:08 AM

threatened to cause death and it was alleged that the appellant forcibly took the daughter of complainant and kept her as a captive labourer on this the police of Pollce Station Rampur Baghelan has registered the crime No117/2000 dated 26.4.2000 Offence Under Section 294 325, 506-B of Indian Penal Code and Under Section 3 (1)(6) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe Atrocities Act and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.

3. During investigation, spot map was prepared, articles were seized and thereafter taking the statements of the witnesses in the matter, charge sheet

was filed against the appellant and co-accused persons.

4. The prosecution has examined total 9 witnesses.

5. In defence, the appellant has not examined any witness.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that he is not challenging the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court and his only prayer is that the appellant has already suffered the jail sentence of about 45 days. It is pertinent to note that this appeal is of the year 2001 and after about 22 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 appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him with fine.

7. Learned counsel for the State has justified and supported the conviction and sentence passed by trial Court.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record along with the impugned judgment. It would Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 1/12/2023 11:58:08 AM

be in the interest of justice, if the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him by enhancing the fine amount.

9. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial Court under 325 of IPC is hereby affirmed. However, the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone with enhanced fine of Rs. 15,000/- and out of this amount Rs. 10,000/-shall be paid to the complainant as compensation.

10. The appellant is directed to deposit the enhanced fine amount within a period of 90 days from today, failing which, he has to undergo the sentence awarded by the trial court. The appellant is on bail, his bail bond shall remain discharged subject to deposit of enhanced fine amount within stipulated period.

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

12. Appeal is finally disposed off.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE MISHRA

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 1/12/2023 11:58:08 AM