Naeem Kurashi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 3346 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Naeem Kurashi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2024

Author: Hirdesh

Bench: Hirdesh

                                                              1
                            IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT INDORE
                                                        BEFORE
                                              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
                                               ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                              CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 645 of 2010

                           BETWEEN:-
                           NAEEM KURASHI S/O MOINNUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 38
                           Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: DRIVER PEETH  ROAD
                           DISTT.INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPELLANT
                           (SHRI M. SINJONIA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT. THRU.ARCHI
                           KENDRA AJK MHOW,
                           DISTRICT-INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI MAYANK MISHRA,           LEARNED     PANEL    LAWYER     FOR    THE
                           RESPONDENT/STATE)

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

Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 03.06.2010 passed by Special Judge, Indore in Special Case No.96/2009, whereby trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sections 354 and 456 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months' RI respectively and one year R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one month.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submits that he is not challenging impugned judgment on merits and is confining his argument to

sentence only.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.

4. So far as conviction is concerned, I have gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution and examined it minutely. From perusal of overall evidence on record, it is clearly established that learned trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellant under Sections 354 and 456 of IPC. Hence, findings recorded by the trial Court with respect to conviction are affirmed.

5. So far as sentence is concerned, record of the case reveals that incident

took place on 06.09.2009, at that time the accused was 38 years old and now he is more than 52 years old. This is first offence of the accused/appellant. He remained in jail from 09.09.2009 to 11.09.2009, hence, the end of the justice would be best served, if his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone with the fine imposed by the court below.

6. In view of the aforesaid, present appeal is partly allowed and conviction of the appellant by the trial court is upheld. So far as sentence awarded by the trial court is concerned, same is modified to the period already undergone by the appellant in jail. Since, appellant is on bail, his bail bonds be discharged.

7. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned court for compliance. The present appeal is partly allowed.

Let the record of the trial court be sent back.

(HIRDESH) JUDGE N.R.