Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohd.Ateek 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. 2394 of 2008
BETWEEN:-
MOHD. ATEEK, S/O MOHD. LATEEF, AGED ABOUT 26
YEARS, RESIDENT OF H.NO.425, GALI NO.2, SUDAMA
NAGAR, AESHBAG BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI PREM NARAYAN MISHRA - ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
POLICE STATION NISHATPURA, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI MANISH MUKHARIYA - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by Sessions Judge Bhopal in S.T. No.290/2008 whereby the
appellant has been convicted under Section 435 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo 01 year R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.
2 . As none appeared on behalf of the appellant, Shri Prem Narayan
Verma, Advocate who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist the
Court on behalf of the appellant as amicus curiae.
3. As per prosecution story, on 04.02.2008 a quarrel took place between
the complainant - Rashid and accused persons namely Mohd. Ateek (present
appellant) and Shahnaz and the present appellant used abusive language towards
the complainant. Co-accused Shahnaz has caused injury to the complainant by
the screw-driver and the appellant had sprinkled the Kerosene on complainant's
motor-cycle and put on fire.
4 . Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he does not
press the appeal on the findings of conviction on the point of sentence. He
further submits that the incident was of the year 2008. He has no criminal
antecedents. There was no mens rea behind the incident so a liberal view on
the point of sentence be taken by the Court. So he 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 04.02.2008 and offence under Sections 294, 323,
435 and 34 of IPC has been registered against the appellant. After investigation
charge sheet was filed.
7. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses
by judgment dated 20.10.2008 convicted the appellant under Section 435 of
IPC and sentenced as stated herein above, however, the findings of conviction
of accused/appellant recorded by the learned trial Judge are based on due
appreciation of evidence and do not require any interference. Hence,
conviction of appellant in aforesaid Section is maintained.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after careful perusal
o f record it is found that there is no minimum sentence is prescribed under
Section 435 IPC. At the time of incident appellant Mohd. Ateek was 26 years
old and co-accused Shahnaz was 25 years old. Keeping in view the long
pendency of this appeal since 2008 and appellant is facing mental agony since
then and that prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the
appellant. He did not misuse the liberty granted under the bail. He has suffered
incarceration of 106 days. In the considered opinion of this court, the sentence
of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone, while
maintaining the sentence of fine intact and the order of the trial Court regarding
disposal of the property.
9. The appellant is on bail, his personal bond and bail bond be
discharged. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed.
10. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the
judgment.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
sjk
