Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Mewada vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 8 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 722 of 2009
BETWEEN:-
1. MAHESH MEWADA, S/O RAMESH CHAND
MEWADA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O
INDRANAGAR P.S. KOTWALI, SEHORE DISTT.
SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. AJAY MEWADA S/O RAMESH CHAND MEWADA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O INDRANAGAR
P.S.KOTWALI SEHORE DISTT. SEHORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. JITENDRA MEWADA S/O RAMESH CHAND
MEWADA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O
INDRANAGAR P.S. KOTWALI SEHORE DISTT.
SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI PREM NARAYAN - ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PS.AJK
DISTT.SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
(BY SHRI NARENDRA LODHI - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGEMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 26/3/2009 passed by the Special Judge, Sehore (M.P.) in
S.T. No. 4/2008 whereby the appellant no.1 has been convicted under Sections
325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 01 year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and
Section 323 of the IPC (two counts) with fine of Rs.1000/- and appellants no.2
and 3 Ajay Mewada and Jitendra Mewada have been convicted under Section
325/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 01 year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-
and Section 323/34 of the IPC (two counts) with fine of Rs.1000/- with default
stipulations.
2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellants, Shri Prem Narayan,
Advocate who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist the Court on
behalf of the appellants as amicus curiae.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that from the evidence on
record, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted, alternatively, he submits that
in fact and circumstances of the case, the sentence may be reduced to the
period already undergone. He further submits that during the trial, the appellants
remained in custody for one day only. The incident is of the year 2008 since
then the appellants are facing mental agony. They have no criminal antecedents.
They are the first offenders. As per the record, they never misused the
conditions of bail. There was no mens ria behind the incident so a liberal view
of the point of sentence be taken by the Court, so he prayed that the sentence
be reduced to period already undergone.
4 . 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.
5. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of
record, FIR was lodged on 20/1/2008 and offence under Sections 323, 294,
506 and 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act has been registered
against the appellants. After investigation charge sheet was filed.
6. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by
judgment dated 26/3/2009 convicted the appellants and sentenced as stated
herein above, however, the findings of conviction of accused/appellants
recorded by the learned trial Judge are based on due appreciation of evidence
and do not require any interference. Hence, conviction of appellant no.1
Mahesh Mewada has been convicted under Sections 325 and 323 of the IPC
(two counts) and appellants no.2 and 3 Ajay Mewada and Jitendra Mewada
have been convicted under Section 325/34 of the IPC and Section 323/34 of the
IPC is affirmed.
7. So far as sentence part is concerned, having regard to the arguments of the
parties, and careful perusal of record it reveals that the appellants Jitendra was
20 years old and Ajay was of 23 years old and Mahesh Mewada was 28 years
old respectively at the time of incident. There is no minimum sentence is
prescribed under the aforesaid offences. This case is pending since 2009 and
since then the appellants are facing mental agony. Prosecution has not brought
any past criminal antecedents of the appellants on the record. The appellants
did not misuse the liberty granted to them under the bail.
8. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year
2008, appellants remained in custody only for one day. The prosecution has
not brought any past criminal antecedent of the appellants on record and there
is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under the aforesaid offences, I
deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellants to the extent of the
period (2 days) which they have already undergone.
9. Accordingly, the jail sentence in aforesaid offences is reduced to the
period already undergone and the sentence of fine amount is maintained. The
appellants are on bail, their personal bonds and bail bonds be discharged. The
order of the trial Court regarding compensation and disposal of the property, if
any, shall be intact. 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
m/-
