Madhya Pradesh High Court
Urmila & Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1514 of 2007
BETWEEN:-
1. URMILAANAND KUMAR PATEL, AGED ABOUT 26
YEAR S, VILL.GULWAR GUJARA P.S.RAMNAGAR
DIST.SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MST. AMIRITIHEERALAL PATEL, AGED ABOUT 60
YEAR S, VILL.GULWAR GUJARA P.S.RAMNAGAR
DIST.SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ANAND KUMAR @ MUNNA S/O HEERALAL PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, VILL.GULWAR GUJARA
P.S.RAMNAGAR DIST.SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI PRADEEP PATEL - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
P.S.RAMNAGAR DIST.SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SEEMA PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against
the judgment of conviction dated 21.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Amarpatan (FTC) in sessions case no. 302/2006 whereby
learned Judge found the appellant nos. 2 to 4 guilty for the offence punishable
under Section 498-A of the IPC and directed to suffer R.I. for 1 year with fine
of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,
Crime No.180/06 was registered against the appellants at Police Station
Ramnagar, District Satna for commission of offence punishable under Sections
498-A, 306 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been
filed before the competent Court.
3. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and
appreciating the evidence led by parties, learned trial Court has acquitted the
appellants from the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and found
them guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of the
IPC and sentenced them as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the
impugned judgment, the appellants have preferred this criminal appeal before
this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants expressly gave up his challenge to
the findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellants is
concerned. In other words, learned counsel for the appellants accepted the
finding of conviction passed against the appellants, however, he challenged the
quantum of punishment alone. They are the first offender and counsel assures
that appellants will not involve in such criminal activities in future. It is further
submitted that in this matter compromise between the present appellants and the
complainant has been done and both the parties have submitted their
compromise application and that has been verified by the Registry vide order
dated 30/08/2012. It is submitted that present appellants are not the main
accused but the main accused is appellant no.1 Smt. Shailendra Kumari who
has expired. He further submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances
of the case, appellants can be punished with fine only. It is also submitted that
having regard to all circumstances which resulted in appellants' conviction and
further keeping in view the fact that the appellants were facing the trial before the
concerned Court since the date of their incarceration, therefore, he prayed that
their jail sentence be reduced suitably.
5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has submitted that after
appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Court below have
rightly found the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offence, therefore, no
grounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellants,
hence, she prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire
record of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal in part upon finding some
force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.
7. Though the appellants have not made any attempt to assail the finding
of their conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether the
findings of the Court below of conviction is legally sustainable or not, I perused
the record and especially therein having so perused, I am satisfied that no case
is made out to interfere in the findings of the Court below on merits. From the
perusal of the record, it reveals that the findings of the trial Court is based upon
proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, therefore, upheld the
findings of conviction under Section 498-A of the IPC recorded by the trial
Court.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants,
natures of the substance, factum of compromise between both the parties and
the fact that this appeal is pending since 2007 and the appellant is facing trial
since 2006, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if
the appellant nos. 2 to 4 are sentenced for till rising of the Court and some
enhancement in the fine amount.
9. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned conviction
i s hereby maintained. However, the jail sentence imposed on appellants are
reduced to the period till rising of the Court and the appellants will surrender
before the trial Court to undergo the sentence till rising of the Court and
deposit the fine amount within a period of 45 days and the sentence of fine is
enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.4,000/- each. In default of payment of enhanced
fine amount, the appellant nos. 2 to 4 shall suffer 1 month R.I. They are on
bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Amount of fine, if any, deposited earlier
shall be adjusted.
10. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal appeal stands
partly allowed and disposed of.
11. Let a copy of this order alongwith record be sent to the court below
for information and necessary compliance.
12. The enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the appellant nos. 2
to 4 within a period of 45 days from today.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
navin
