Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamlesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2440 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
KAMLESH S/O RAMA KOKADE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O GHATBIROLI , P.S. MULTAI,
DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI VIKAS JYOTISHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S. MULTAI
POLICE STATION BORDEHI, DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SHANTI TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER)
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the
Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
27.2.2019 passed by III Addl. Sessions Judge, Multai District Betul in S.T. No.
230/2017 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 329 of
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months with fine of
Rs.1000/- with default stipulations.
2. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that as per the
prosecution story as projected in paragraph 3 of the judgment, it reflects that
against the appellant allegations were levelled that on 18.6.2017 in order to
extort money, the appellant approached the complainant and sought loan or the
goods in lieu thereof and when complainant declined to accede to the demand
made by the appellant, the appellant abused him and also inflicted injury with the
aid of knife and also assaulted him with stone on his head as well as shoulders.
It is contended by the counsel that the Court, after trial, has concluded that the
present appellant is guilty of conviction under Section 329 of I.P.C. The
counsel contends that there could not have been any conviction under Section
329 as there was no extortion within the meaning of Section 329, I.P.C. Even if
the allegations levelled by the prosecution are considered, as per the
complainant himself the appellant approached the complainant to lend loan or
goods in lieu of money. Therefore, the said act could not have been treated as
extortion as there was no intention to extort money neither the complainant was
put to fear while demand of money was made. It is clear from the testimony of
complainant himself that when the appellant demanded the money, he refused it
thereafter he was subjected to assault which was made by the appellant.
3. It is contended by the counsel that though the matter was
compromised between the complainant as well as appellant yet the Court below
refused to compound the offences while observing that offences under Section
329 and 294 I.P.C are not compoundable. It is contended by the counsel that
though the Court has acquitted the appellant so far as offence under Section
294 I.P.C is concerned, but has convicted the appellant under Section 329
I.P.C. It is also contended by the appellant that the appellant as of now had
suffered seven months incarceration.
4. Per contra counsel for State has opposed the prayer and submitted
that the judgment does not require any interference.
5. Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it is
evident from the perusal of the judgment that the conviction of the appellant is
under Section 329 I.P.C. In order to attract Section 329 I.P.C, the complainant
alleged that the present appellant approached him asking for a loan or in lieu of
loan other goods and when the complainant declined to accede to the demand
made by the appellant, he inflicted injury. Therefore, it is evident that so far as
extortion is concerned, it is nowhere projected by the complainant that he was
made to understand that he was under fear of any injury or threat to his life and
it is the stand of the complainant that the appellant had only approached the
complainant asking for a loan. Therefore, the said act, by no stretch of
imagination be brought within the ambit of Section 329 I.P.C. Therefore, in the
considered view of this Court, the conviction of the appellant under Section 329
I.P.C is not sustainable.
6. Resultantly, so far as the conviction of the appellant under Section
329 I.P.C is concerned, the same stands set aside. However, as grievous
injuries have been found to be inflicted by the present appellant, the present
appellant is convicted under Section 325 I.P.C and he is sentenced to the
period already undergone in terms of the impugned judgment. The appellant if
in custody be released forth with. Bail bonds of the appellant stand discharged.
7. With the aforesaid appeal stands partly allowed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
vivek
