Om Prakash vs The State Of M.P,
2023 Latest Caselaw 3717 MP

                                                           1
                          IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT GWALIOR
                                                   BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                               ON THE 2 nd OF MARCH, 2023
                                           CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 591 of 2005

                         BETWEEN:-
                         OM PRAKASH S/O RAMAUTAR NAI, AGED ABOUT 21
                         Y E A R S , RESIDENT OF GRAM SENTHARI, P.S.
                         MEHGAON,AT PRESENT ATER ROAD DISTRICT BHIND
                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....APPELLANT
                         (BY SHRI PRABHAKAR KUSHWAH- ADVOCATE )

                         AND
                         THE STATE OF M.P, INCHARGE POLICE STATION P.S.
                         ATER DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENT
                         (BY SHRI CP SINGH- PANEL LAWYER)

                               Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                         following:
                                                            ORDER

This appeal is pending since 2005. On 25-06-2013 no body had appeared

for the appellant. Today, also no body appeared for the appellant. Therefore, Shri Prabhakar Kushwah, who is in the Panel of Legal Services Authority, is hereby appointed as counsel for the appellant.

Ins tant criminal appeal under Section 374 of CrPC has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07-09-2005 passed by Seventh Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Gohad, District Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 173 of 1993 whereby the appellant has been convicted under

Signature Not Verified 397 read with Section 397 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years RI with Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 3/3/2023 6:42:41 PM

fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation.

The allegation against the present appellant is that he along with two persons on the date of incident i.e. 11-05-1993 at around 10:00 am committed robbery while complainant Harnayan was going with his wife to the house of his father-in-law at Malpura and robbed gold and silver ornaments from his wife on the point of katta, mouser and knife. On the the basis of which Crime No. 44 of 1993 was registered. Matter was investigated. Statement of complainant and other witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation and other formalities, charge sheet was filed before the competent Court from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court for its trial and the trial Court after

conclusion of trial, convicted the present appellant and sentenced him accordingly, as stated above.

At the threshold, Shri Kushwah, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence has taken place as back as in the year 1993 and the appellant has served in custody a period of approximately two years out of total jail sentence, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the contentions of counsel for the appellant and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the appellant nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment as well as record of the case.

It is not in dispute that the occurrnce relates to year 1993 and the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 3/3/2023 6:42:41 PM

appellant has so far served a period of approximately two years in custody out of total jail sentence and so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the overall circumstances and the fact the offence in question was committed nearly thirty years back, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial Court for the aforesaid offence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellant's conviction for aforesaid offence, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine amount imposed by the trial Court is reduced to Rs.5,000/- and two months time from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment is granted to the appellant to deposit the fine amount after adjustment of fine amount if deposited by the appellant, failing which the appellant shall further undergo additional imprisonment of one month. The appellant is on bail, his bail bond and surety bond stand discharged.

Let copy of this judgment along with record be sent to the trial Court concerned for information and compliance.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE MKB

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 3/3/2023 6:42:41 PM