Madhya Pradesh High Court
Paramlal 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. 1335 of 2007
BETWEEN:-
PARAMLAL S/O PUNJRAM KUNWARMAN AHRIWAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, TANKI MOHALLA
MAHARAJPUR,P.S.MAHARAJPUR DISTR.SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI PRAMOD SINGH TOMAR - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
P.S.MAHARAJPUR DISTT.SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI DINESH PATEL - DY. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against
t h e judgment of conviction dated 13.06.2007 passed by the Learned Fifth
Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T.No.46/2007, whereby learned Judge
found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the
IPC and directed to suffer R.I. for 1 year and six months with fine of Rs.500/-
with default stipulation.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,
Crime No.135/2006 was registered against the appellant at Police Station
Maharajpur, District Sagar for commission of offence punishable under
Sections 307, 294, 34 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 found the appellant
guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced them
as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the appellant
has preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant expressly gave up his challenge to
the findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellant is
concerned. In other words, learned counsel for the appellant accepted the
finding of conviction passed against the appellant, however, he challenged the
quantum of punishment alone. It is submitted that the appellant is the first
offender and counsel assures that he will not involve in such criminal activities
in future. It is also submitted that having regard to all circumstances which
resulted in appellant's conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the
appellant was facing the trial before the concerned Court since the date of his
incarceration, therefore, he prayed that his 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 appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence, therefore, no
grounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellant,
hence, he 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 appellant.
7. Though the appellant has not made any attempt to assail the finding of
his 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 document evidence, therefore, upheld the
findings of conviction under Section 324 of the IPC recorded by the trial Court.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant,
natures of the substance, its quantity and period of jail sentence already
undergone by him, which is about 98 days and this appeal is pending since
2007 and the appellant is facing trial since 2007, I am of the considered view
that the ends of justice would be met if the appellant is sentenced for the period
already undergone by him with 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 appellant is
reduced to the period already undergone by him and the sentence of fine is
enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.4000/-. In default of payment of enhanced fine
amount, the appellant shall suffer 3 month R.I. He be released forthwith, subject
to payment of fine and if not required in any other case. 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 within
a period of one month from today.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
anu
