Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 586 of 2009
BETWEEN:-
1. MOHAN S/O UMRAO, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
CASTE-BALAHI, OCCUPATION: LABOUR, R/O
VILL. GOL, PS. MANDHATA, KHANDWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. PARASRAM S/O UMRAO, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
CASTE- BALAHI, OCCUPATION -AGRICULTURIST,
R/O VILLAGE GOL P.S.MANDHATA DISTT. EAST
NIMAR, KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PARASRAM S/O DONGARU CASTE- HARIJZN,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BHANDARIA P.S.KOTWALI KHANDWA, DISTT.
EAST NIMAR, KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. GANGU S/O NARAYAN HARIJAN, AGED ABOUT 70
YEARS, OCCUPATION-NIL, R/O VILLAGE
BHANDARIYA P.S.KOTWALI KHANDWA, DISTT.
EAST NIMAR KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SANTOSH S/O BALRAM, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
OCCUPATION - LABOUR, R/O BHANDARIYA
P.S.KOTWALI KHANDWA, DISTT EAST NIMAR,
KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY MRS. SEEMA SAHU - ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH TH. PS. MANDHATA,
DISTT. EAST NIMAR KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JHA - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONIKA
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 2/15/2024
7:12:01 PM
2
following:
JUDGEMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 4/3/2009 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, East
Nimar, Khandwa (M.P.) in S.T. No. 239/2006 whereby the appellant no.1 has
been convicted under Sections 148 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 01 year
R.I. with fine of Rs.100/-, Section 323/149 of the IPC and sentenced to
undergo 01 year R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/-, Section 506-II of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo 01 year R.I. with fine of Rs.100/- with default stipulations
and the appellants no.2 to 5 have been convicted under Section 147 of the IPC
and sentenced to undergo 01 year RI with fine of Rs.100/- each and Section
323/149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 01 year RI with fine of Rs.1000/-
with default stipulations.
2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellants, Ms. Seema Sahu, Advocate
who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist the Court on behalf of
the appellants as amicus curiae.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from the evidence on
record, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted, alternatively, she submits that in
fact and circumstances of the case, the sentence may be reduced to the period
already undergone. She further submits that during the trial, the appellant No.1
Mohan remained in custody for 23 days, appellant no.2 Parasram remained in
custody for 18 days, appellant no.3 Parasram son of Dongaru remained in
custody for 18 days, appellant no.4 Gangu remained in custody for 23 days and
appellant no.5 Santosh remained in custody for 13 days respectively. The
incident is of the year 2006 since then the appellants are facing mental agony.
They have no criminal antecedents. They are the first offenders. As per the
record, he never misused the conditions of bail. There was no mens ria behind
the incident so a liberal view of the point of sentence be taken by the Court, so
she prayed that the sentence be reduced to period already undergone.
5 . Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State
supported the finding of conviction. He said that Court is at liberty to consider
the case on the point of sentence.
6. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of
record, FIR was lodged on 29/4/2006 and offence under Sections 307, 147,
148, 149, 294, 506 and 323 of IPC has been registered against the appellants.
After investigation charge sheet was filed.
7. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by
judgment dated 4/3/2009 convicted the appellants and sentenced as stated
herein above, however, the findings of conviction of accused/appellants
recorded by the learned trial Judge are based on due appreciation of evidence
and do not require any interference. Hence, conviction of appellant Mohan
under Sections 148, 323/149 and 506-II of the IPC and appellants Parasram
son of Umrao, Parasram son of Dongaru, Gangu and Santosh under Sections
147 and 323/149 of IPC is affirmed.
8. So far as sentence part is concerned, having regard to the arguments of the
parties, and careful perusal of record it reveals that the appellants were 34 years,
25 years, 32 years, 70 years and 25 years old respectively at the time of
incident. There is no minimum sentence is prescribed under the aforesaid
offences. This case is pending since 2009 and since then the appellants are
facing mental agony. Prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents
of the appellants on the record. The appellants did not misuse the liberty
granted to them under the bail.
9. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year
2006, appellant No.1 Mohan remained in custody for 23 days, appellant no.2
Parasram remained in custody for 18 days, appellant no.3 Parasram son of
Dongaru remained in custody for 18 days, appellant no.4 Gangu remained in
custody for 23 days and appellant no.5 Santosh remained in custody for 13
days respectively. The prosecution h a s not brought any past criminal
antecedent of the appellants on record and there is no minimum sentence has
been prescribed under the aforesaid offences, I deem it proper to reduce the jail
sentence of the appellants to the extent of the period which they have already
undergone.
10. Accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone
by them and the sentence of fine amount and default clause is maintained. Order
of the trial Court regarding disposal of the property is also maintained.
11. The appellants are on bail, their personal bonds and bail bonds be
discharged. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed.
12. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
m/-
