Deena @ Dinu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16164 MP

                                                              1
                           IN      THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT INDORE
                                                        BEFORE
                                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                                  ON THE 3 rd OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                              CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 123 of 2017

                          BETWEEN:-
                          DEENA @ DINU S/O JATAN SINGH BHILALA, AGED
                          ABOUT     25     YEARS,   R/O GRAM CHIKHLI
                          DISTT.ALIRAJPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                             .....APPELLANT
                          (BY MS. ANITA SINGH - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                          OFFICER     THRU.P.S.BAKHATGARH,  DISTRICT
                          ALIRAJPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY MR. SANTOSH THAKUR - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

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

Today the case is fixed for argument on I.A.No.8864/2022, which is first

application for suspension of sentence on behalf of the sole appellant Deena @ Dinu, however, both the parties are agreed to argue the matter finally at motion hearing stage itself.

2. With the consent of parties, matter is heard finally.

3. The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17/10/2015 passed by I

Signature Not Verified Additional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur (M.P.) in S.T.No.183/2010, whereby the Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 10/4/2023 10:51:01 AM

appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") and Section 25(1B)A and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, 02 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- and 04 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- with usual default stipulation.

4. The prosecution story in brief is that on 16/05/2010 at about 04:00 AM one Dinesh lodged a report that when he went to his in-laws house to attend some marriage function, where Veer Singh, R/o Village Navja met him, who offered him to sale his motorcycle to the complainant. Veer Singh at about 08:00 PM along with appellant went to Village Chikhali. At about 04:00AM in

the night instead of going Village Chikhali, he stopped he went near the forest of Madhupallevi Undari Road and demanded money from the complainant on the pretext to bringing motorcycle. Veer Singh replied that he had no money, then appellant by using country made pistol caused injury on the mouth of Veer Singh. Due to which, Veer Singh fell down on earth. It is also alleged that the appellant caused injury by stone and try to beat complainant Dinesh also. When the complainant made hue and cry, he run away from the spot and Bacchu and Kuwar Singh came there. Thereafter, the reported the incident at Police Chowki Chhatkala (Ex.-P/5) and on the basis of Ex.-P/5 police station Bakhadgarh registered the FIR (Ex.-P/14). Both the victim persons were sent for their medical examination, which was conducted by Dr. Sanjay Solanki. Fire arm has also been recovered from the possession of the present appellant, which has been sent for FSL, Sagar for its chemical examination and the FSL report was found positive.

5. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 10/4/2023 10:51:01 AM

against the appellant / accused before the JMFC, Alirajpur who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Alirajpur, later on matter has been transferred to the I Additional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur. The Prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses, but defence did not examine any witness. The trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by both the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence available on record, convicted the appellant / accused for the offence as mentioned herein above. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and the sentence passed by the trial Court, the appellant has preferred present criminal appeal before this Court.

6. The appellant has preferred the present appeal on several grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submits that she does not want to press this criminal appeal on merits and she is not assailing the conviction part of the judgment but she confined her argument only to the extent of quantum of sentence part. Her only prayer is that imprisonment of the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him as the appellant has suffered jail incarceration during the trial as well as during the pendency of the appeal. He is regularly marking his presence before the Court. He is a poor person and is not having any criminal background. Therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the appeal and

prays for its rejection by submitting that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and the sentence in question is sufficient. Hence, no interference is required.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their arguments and perused the record and evidence produced by both the parties.

9. In view of the above submissions, although the conviction has not Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 10/4/2023 10:51:01 AM

been challenged, but perusal of the evidence available on record also justifies the judgment of conviction passed by Court below.

10. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be just and proper. The appellant has already suffered some jail incarceration during the trial and from the date of judgment i.e. from 17/10/2015 he is languishing in jail, meaning thereby, he has completed more than 08 years jail incarceration during the trial as well as during the pendency of the appeal. At the time of incident, appellant was a young boy of 25 years of age. He is not having any criminal background. He is facing trial since 2010. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence awarded to him.

11. Considering the aforesaid, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of appellant to the period already undergone by him i.e. 08 years. The sentence of appellant is modified to the aforesaid extent. The fine amount imposed by the trial Court is hereby affirmed.

12. Consequently, the present criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent as indicated herein above. The appellant Deena @ Dinu is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Disposal of the property shall be as per the order of the trial Court.

13. Let a copy of this judgment along with record of the trial Court be sent back to the concerned Court for necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Tej Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 10/4/2023 10:51:01 AM