Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 16337 MP
Judgement Date : 5 October, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 5 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 147 of 2000
BETWEEN:-
PRAKASHCHANDRA S/O DEVILAL KHATI, R/O: VILLAGE
KURAWAR, TEHSIL NARSINGHGARH, DISTRICT
RAJGARH (BIAORA) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI RITU RAJ BHATNAGAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THRU. P.S. KURAWAR, TEH.
NARSINGHGARH, DIST. RAJGARH (BIAORA) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI AMIT RAWAL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') against the impugned judgment dated 21.01.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghgarh, Dist. Rajgarh (Biaora) in Sessions Trial No.163/1994, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced only with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation of 7 years R.I.
2. Prosecution story is in brief are that on 01.12.1993, at about 9:00 PM, when complainant Kalloo was returning to his house, at that time father of the
Signature Not Verified appellant met him on the way and asked him that why he had abused him. After Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 07-10-2023 11:06:17
this discussion, the complainant went to his house. At about 11:00 PM, when he was sitting on the 'Otala' of his house, at that time, appellant/ accused Prakashchandra came there and asked him that why he has abused his father and appellant assaulted him by means of knife. When the wife of the complainant cried, then one Govind came there and in the meanwhile, the appellant ran away from the spot. After that an FIR has been lodged at P.S. Kurawar, District Rajgarh (Biaora). MLC of the victim person has been conducted by the Dr. S.S. Bajpai (PW-13) and found 7 injuries on the certain parts of the body. During the investigation, knife was recovered from the possession of the present appellant.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the CJM, Rajgarh (Biaora), who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Rajgarh later on which was transferred to the ASJ, Narsinghgarh.
4. Trial Court has framed the charges under Section 307 of IPC against the appellant. Appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses, but only one witness has been examined by the appellant in his defence.
6. The trial Court after considering the arguments advanced by both the parties and considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned herein above.
7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, appellant has preferred this appeal on several grounds, but during the course of the arguments counsel for the appellant did not press this appeal on merit. He did not assail the finding part of the judgment. He confined his arguments only on the quantum of sentence part. Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 07-10-2023 11:06:17
Appellant is facing trial since 1993 i.e. for a period of 30 years and he is an old person of 60 years of age and is not having any criminal past. Therefore, his fine amount may be reduced.
8 . Per contra, counsel for respondent/ State opposes the prayer and prays for it rejection by submitting that trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant.
9. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and considered their arguments.
1 0 . In view of the above, although the conviction has not been challenged, but the evidence available on record also justifies the order of conviction passed by the trial Court.
11. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the submission made b y learned counsel for the appellant appears to be just and proper. The appellant has already suffered jail incarceration from 06.12.1993 to 19.12.1993 and thereafter, from 12.01.2000 to 04.04.2000. At the time of incident present appellant was aged about 36 years. Now he has turned 60 years. Appellant has no other criminal antecedent. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.
12. Considering the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed by maintaining the conviction of the appellant, but reducing his jail sentence to the period
already undergone by him. The fine amount imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court is hereby affirmed. Jail sentence of the appellant is already suspended, his surety and bail bonds stands discharged.
13. The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by the trial Court is also affirmed.
14. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment alongwith the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 07-10-2023 11:06:17
record to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary action.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Anushree
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 07-10-2023 11:06:17
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!