Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 3690 MP
Judgement Date : 2 March, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
ON THE 2 nd OF MARCH, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2850 of 2000
BETWEEN:-
1. GAUTAM S/O PYARELAL DHIMAR, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DEPARTMENT OF
WEIGHTS & MEASURES, R/O RETATEK BARGI
DAM REHABILITATION FISHERY COOPERATIVE
SOCIETY, TIKARIYA, DISTRICT-MANDLA (M.P.)
2. ANUP SINGH S/O PYARELAL DHIMAR, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS, CASTE DHIMAR, OCCUPATION
LABROURER, R/O VILLAGE PADMI, P.S.
TIKARIYA DISTRICT-MANDLA (M.P.)
3. MUKESH KUMAR S/O PYARELAL BURMAN, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS,
CASTE DHIMAR, OCCUPATION LABOURER R/O
TIKARIYA, DISTRICT-MANDLA (M.P.)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SHIVAM SINGH - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI DINESH PATEL - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE )
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by SAN
Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.11.2000 passed by Date: 2023.03.03 18:50:22 IST
the Special Judge, SC/ST Atrocities, Mandla in Special Sessions Case No.134/2000, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and under Section 341 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on at about 7:00 p.m. when Barelal
was returning from the shop, at that time, due to previous amenity, accused persons came there and assaulted him by means of lathis. Thereafter, they threatened him and also abused him belonging to his caste.
3. After due appreciation evidence acquitted from charges and conviction and
sentence as mentioned in paragraph 40 of its judgement.
4. 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 appellants have already suffered the jail 10 days and is in jail. It is further submitted that appellants does not want to press this appeal on the point of conviction, however, he requested to reduce the sentence which has already undergone by the appellants, 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.
5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has justified and supported the conviction and sentence passed by trial Court.
Signature Not Verified
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the SAN
Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL material available on record along with the impugned judgment. On perusal Date: 2023.03.03 18:50:22 IST
of record, it seems that the appellants have been facing criminal
proceedings since last 23 years. Considering the nature of offence 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 period already undergone by them, subject to imposed of fine amount.
7. On perusal of record it reveals that appellants are facing criminal
proceedings since last 23 years. Appellants have suffered the jail sentence of about 9 days. It is pertinent to note that this appeal is of the year 2000 and after about 23 years it would be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence of the appellants for the period already undergone by them by imposing a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- under Section 323 and by imposing a fine amount of Rs.500/- under Section 341 which shall be paid to the complainant as compensation.
8. Appellants are in jail. They be released immediately from custody if they are not required in any other case subject to depositing of fine amount, failing which they have to suffer the entire jail sentence awarded by the trial Court.
9. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial Court along with the record for information and necessary action.
10. Appeal is finally disposed off.
Certified copy as per rules.
Signature Not Verified SAN (RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL JUDGE Date: 2023.03.03 18:50:22 IST vai
Signature Not Verified SAN
Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2023.03.03 18:50:22 IST
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!