Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nakhraj @ Nakhre Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 2 August, 2024
1 CRA-555-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 2 nd OF AUGUST, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 555 of 2017
NAKHRAJ @ NAKHRE KUSHWAH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR
Appearance:
Shri Dibyang Dev Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Samar Goraiya, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 (2) of
Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.4.2017 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Chanchoda, District Guna in Session Trial
No.281/2016 whereby the appellant has been acquitted from the offence
under Section 376 of the I.P.C. but he has convicted under Section 456 of the
I.P.C and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with fine
of Rs.500/-.
2. In brief case of the prosecution case is that the prosecutrix lodged a
report at Police Station, Chanchoda, District Guna to the effect that on
22.10.2016 at about 11:00 P.M. the appellant entered into her home and
committed rape upon her. On her screaming, her brother Neelu and Ganpat
were reached on the spot. When they tried to stop, then the appellant pushed
them. Thereafter, parents of the prosecutrix also reached there and tried to
2 CRA-555-2017
stop him but he pushed them and fled away. On her report, Crime
No.472/2016 was registered at Police Station Chanchoda, District Guna and
appellant was arrested. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
filed in the Court. Charges were framed against accused person which he
denied and requested for trial. After trial, appellant has been acquitted from
the charge under Section 376 of the I.P.C but convicted under Section 456
of the I.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants/accused submitted that he is not
challenging the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence. As
regards sentence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that
appellant has suffered 161 days jail sentence and he has been facing agony of
trial since 2016 for a period of near about 8 years. Therefore, it is prayed that
sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone.
Fine amount has already been deposited by him.
4. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment but
he has no objection on deciding the appeal on the point of sentence.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. As per the impugned judgment, the appellant was charged under
Sections 456 and 376 of the I.P.C. but he has been convicted under Section
456 of the I.P.C. only and sentenced to undergo for a period of six months
rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. As per receipt of fine
(M.P.T.C), the fine amount has already been deposited by the appellant. It is
also mentioned in para-24 of the impugned judgment that appellant remained
in custody since 8.11.2016 to 17.4.2017 and it has also been directed that this
3 CRA-555-2017
period be adjusted against the period of sentence. The total period of
sentence is 180 days, out which, he remained in custody for 161 days. The
appellant is facing trial since 2016 for 8 years. There is no criminal
antecedents of the appellant/accused on record. He has not misused any
liberty granted to him on bail. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce
the sentence to the period already undergone by him.
7. Consequently, while affirming the conviction of appellant under
Section 456 of the I.P.C. the impugned sentence for that offence is reduced
to the period already undergone by the appellant while maintaining the
sentence of fine. Order of trial court regarding disposal of property, if any, is
also affirmed.
8. The appellant is on bail, his bail bond be discharged. Accordingly,
the appeal is allowed.
9. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the
judgment.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Ahmad
