Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 1 March, 2023
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 1 st OF MARCH, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 742 of 2004
BETWEEN:-
1. RAJESH S/O SHRI HARI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 32
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
RESIDENT OF GRAM KOT BAROSA THANA
GORMI DIST. BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUKHDEV SINGH S/O SHRI MEHTAB SINGH
CHOUHAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST RESIDENT OF
GRAM AANPUR THANA ORAIYA DISTRICT
ORAIYA (UTTAR PRADESH)
3. GIRRAJ SINGH TOMAR S/O RADHE SHYAM
TOMAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
WAITER IN PANTRY CAR RESIDENT OF GRAM
NAHAR KA PURA THANA PORSA TEHSIL AMBAH
DIST. MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. AJAY SINGH S/O SHRI RAJVEER SINGH
BHADORIYA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: JOB RESIDENT OF GRAM
CHILOGA THANA DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. RAJKUMAR S/O SHRI RAM VILASH, AGED ABOUT
30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: WORK IN PANTRY CAR
RESIDENT OF GRAM NAHAR KA PURA THANA
PORSA TEHSIL AMBAH DIST. MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI MADHUKAR KULSHRESHTA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANTS)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR INCHARGE
POLICE STATION P.S. KOTWALI DIT. MORENA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 3/3/2023
6:42:41 PM
2
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI CP SINGH- LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT- STATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Ins tant criminal appeal under Section 374 of CrPC has been filed
challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13th
October, 2004 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in
Sessions Trial No. 365 of 1999, whereby appellant-accused no. 1, 2, 3 and 4
have been convicted under Section 399 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three
years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation and
they have further been convicted under Section 402 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- and under
Section 25(1-b)(B) of the Arms Act, sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous
Imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- with default stipulation whereas appellant-
accused No.5 has been convicted under Section 399 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years with fine of Rs.200/- and two
years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- for offence under Section
402 of IPC with default stipulations. All the sentences awarded to the the
appellants have been directed to run concurrently.
Prosecution case in short is that on 19-08-1999 in the night at around 1:45
SHO of Police Station Kotwali, Morena on getting secret information, reached
the spot along with other police force and found that the appellants were armed
with arms and ammunition and they were making a plan for committing dacoity
in the house of one Radheyshyam Sharma. They were caught hold and from
their possession, arms and ammunition, lathi, etc. were seized for which they
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 3/3/2023
6:42:41 PM
could not justify the same. Dehati Nalishi was recorded and on the basis of
dehati nalishi, crime no.607 of 1999 was registered for offence under Sections
399, 402 of IPC and under Section 25-B, 25/27 of Arms Act. From the
possession of accused Rajesh Singh, one 315 bore katta with three live
cartridges, from possession accused Sukhdev Singh, one 315 bore katta along
with two live cartridges, from the possession of Ajay Singh, one country-made
pistol with pellets, from the possession of Rajkumar, one lathi and from the
possession of Girraj Singh one knife were also seized. After completion of
investigation and other formalities, charge sheet was filed before the competent
Court from where the case was committed to Sessions Court for its trial. The
trial Court after conclusion of trial, convicted and sentenced the present
appellants for the offences as mentioned above.
This appeal is pending since 2004. During the course of arguments,
learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not challenge the finding
of conviction but he submits that all witnesses are interested witnesses and
police personnel. No alleged offence was committed by the present appellants.
They have been falsely implicated in the case. The trial Court only on the basis
of evidence of police personnel has wrongly convicted and sentenced the
appellants. However, he confines his argument to the quantum of sentence part
only. It is contended that since occurrence has taken place as back as in the
year 1999, appellant no.1 Rajesh has served in custody a period of three
months 19 days, appellant no.5 Rajkumar has served in custody a period of
three months 26 days and rest of the appellants have served in custody a period
of three months 22 days out of total jail sentence awarded by the trial Court, the
appellants were on bail during trial and they did not misused the liberty granted
to them and fine amount has already been deposited by them, therefore, it is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 3/3/2023
6:42:41 PM
prayed that substantive jail sentence awarded to appellants for aforesaid
offences under Sections 399, 402 of IPC may be reduced to the period already
undergone by them.
O n the other hand, State Counsel opposed the contentions of counsel
for the appellants and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere
with the sentence awarded to appellants nor any compassion or sympathy is
called for in the said case.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment as well as
record.
It is not disputed that the occurrence relates to year 1999 and appellant
no.1 Rajesh has served in custody a period of three months 19 days, appellant
no.5 Rajkumar has served in custody a period of three months 26 days and rest
of the appellants have served in custody a period of three months 22 days out
of total jail sentence awarded by the trial Court and so also, suffered the agony
and trauma of protracted trial.
It is true that minimum sentence of one year has been prescribed under
Section 25 of the Arms Act. Looking to overall circumstances and also
keeping in view the fact that offence in question was committed nearly more
than 23 years back and the appellants are the poor persons, it will be just and
proper if sentence awarded by trial Court for aforesaid offence under Section
399 and 402 of IPC and Section 25(1-b) (B) of the Arms Act is reduced to the
period already undergone by them.
In view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the
conviction of appellants for aforesaid offences, the sentence awarded to them
is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, sentence
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 3/3/2023
6:42:41 PM
of fine is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- (Rs.3,000/- for each of appellants). The
fine amount, if any, deposited by each of appellants shall be adjusted in the
enhance amount. Two months' time from the date of receipt of copy of this
judgment, is hereby granted to each of appellants to deposit aforesaid fine
before the trial Court, failing which they shall undergo further imprisonment as
awarded by trial Court. Appellants are on bail, their bail bond and surety bond
stand discharged.
Let a copy of this order along with record of trial Court be sent back
forthwith.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE
MKB
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 3/3/2023
6:42:41 PM
