Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramvishal 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 PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 8 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2307 of 2007
BETWEEN:-
1. RAMVISHAL S/O CHHEDAMI YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, VILL.BILHARI,PS KUTHLA
DISTT.KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAMJIS/O RAMVISHAL, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
VILL.BILHARI,PS KUTHLA DISTT.KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS. GARIMA TIWARI - AMICUS CURIAE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DISTT.KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. SEEMA PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER )
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 19.09.2007 passed by the Learned First
Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T.No.69/2007, whereby learned Judge
found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 of
the IPC and directed to suffer R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.1000/- each with
default stipulation.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,
Crime No.0/2007 was registered against the appellants at Police Station Kuthla,
District Katni for commission of offence punishable under Sections 294, 307,
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 appellants
guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 of 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. It is submitted that the appellants are the first
offenders and counsel assures that they will not involve in such criminal
activities in future. 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
his incarceration, therefore, he prayed that their jail sentence be reduced
suitably.
5. Learned counsel 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, 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 appellants.
7. Though the appellants have 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 323/34 of the IPC recorded by the trial
Court.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants,
natures of the substance, its quantity and period of jail sentence already
undergone by appellant no.1-Ramvishal, which is about 27 days and appellant
no.2- Ramji, which is about 45 days and this appeal is pending since 2007 and
the appellants are facing trial since 2007, I am of the considered view that the
ends of justice would be met if the appellants are sentenced for the period
already undergone by them with fine amount of Rs.1000/- which has already
been deposited by them.
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 them. They be released forthwith
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.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
anu
