Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kishorkumar vs The State Of M.P. on 7 February, 2024
Author: Amar Nath Kesharwani
Bench: Amar Nath Kesharwani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
ON THE 7TH OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.817 OF 2002
BETWEEN:-
KISHORE KUMAR JAIN S/O MAHATMA RAM JAIN
AGED 23 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
HANUMANJI WARD, MAHARAJPUR, P.S.
MAHARAJPUR, DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI YASHPAL PATEL - PROXY COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF SHRI
SANJAY PATEL - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH P.S. HARIJAN
KALYAN THANA MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. SHAKTI TRIPATHI - PANEL LAWYER)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") has been filed by the appellant
being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
30/04/2002 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities
Act), Mandla in Special Case No.15/2001, whereby learned Special
Judge found the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 294, 324 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one
month, R.I. for two months and R.I. for one year respectively.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has explicitly given up his
challenge to the findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of
the appellant under Sections 341, 294 and 324 of the IPC is concerned.
In other words, the learned counsel for the appellant accepted the
finding of conviction passed against the appellant under Sections 341,
294 and 324 of the IPC. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned,
learned counsel submitted that the appellant was a young man aged
about 23 years at the time of incident and he is the first offender and
counsel assures that he will not be involved in such criminal activities in
future. It is also submitted that having regard to all circumstances which
resulted in the appellant's conviction and further keeping in view the fact
that the appellant was facing criminal prosecution for more than 22
years, therefore, it is prayed that sentence of the appellant be reduced to
the period already undergone by him (i.e. for 30 days from 14/12/2000
to 16/12/2000 and 15/06/2001 to 11/07/2001).
3. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent State has submitted
that after appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the
Court below has rightly found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid
offence, therefore, no grounds are available for reducing the jail
sentence awarded to the appellant, hence, she prayed for dismissal of the
present appeal.
4. Having heard the 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.
5. Though the appellant has not made any attempt to assail the
finding of his conviction on merits, yet in order to satisfy myself as to
whether the findings of conviction under Section 341, 294 and 324 of
the IPC is legally sustainable or not, I perused the record and found that
the findings of the learned trial Court are well reasoned and based on
due appreciation of evidence, which requires no interference, so the
same are hereby affirmed.
6. So far as sentence is concerned, I am of the considered opinion
that looking at the fact that the appellant was young man aged about 23
years at the time of incident, who is facing criminal prosecution for last
more than 22 years and with the assurance given by appellant that in
future the appellant will not involve in any such offence, therefore, this
Court is of the view that the jail sentence awarded to the appellant
deserves to be and is hereby reduced to the period as already undergone
by him (i.e. for 30 days from 14/12/2000 to 16/12/2000 and 15/06/2001
to 11/07/2001).
8. With the aforesaid modification, present criminal appeal stands
partly allowed and disposed of.
9. Let a copy of this order alongwith the record be sent to the trial
Court for information and necessary compliance.
(AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE
as.
