Ganesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 3040 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ganesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 February, 2024

Author: Maninder S. Bhatti

Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti

                                                            1
                          IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                             ON THE 1 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                            CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 217 of 2007

                         BETWEEN:-
                         1.    GANESH S/O DHANNALAL, AGED ABOUT 25
                               YE A R S , GRAM SIGOT THANA PIPLOD DIST.
                               KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    DILIP S/O DHANNALAL, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
                               GRAM SIGOT THANA PIPLOD DIST. KHANDWA
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPELLANT
                         (BY SHRI SIDDHARTH BENDEL - ADVOCATE )

                         AND
                         THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH TH. P.S. PIPLOD
                         DSIT. KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY MS. SHANTI TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER )

                               This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the
                         following:
                                                             ORDER

This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2007 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Khandwa in S.T. No.94/2005, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 294, 323 and 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months with fine of Rs. 500/- on each count, with default stipulations.

2. The counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants do not not

want to press this appeal against their conviction recorded by the trial Court, however, it is submitted that the ends of justice would be met, if the jail sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone.

3. The counsel for the State has supported the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court.

4. Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment and other material on record, since counsel for the appellants has not pressed upon the conviction of the appellants, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 294, 323 and 323/34 of the IPC is hereby affirmed.

5. So far as sentence is concerned, the incident took place 20 years ago, in the considered view of this Court, no fruitful purpose is going to be served by again sending the appellants to the jail after about 20 years of the incident, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice if the jail sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone and fine amount is enhanced to Rs.1000/- from Rs.500/-.

6. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial Court under Sections 294, 323 and 323/34 of the IPC is hereby affirmed. The jail sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone and fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.1000/- on each count.

7. The appellants are directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court concerned within 15 days from today. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged, subject to deposit of aforesaid fine amount.

8. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately along with a copy

of this judgment for information and necessary action.

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE ac