Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind 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. 708 of 2009
BETWEEN:-
ARVIND S/O GOPILAL, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/0
ICHHAWAR, DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS. PUSHPANJALI DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PS
ICCHAWAR DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI MANISH MUKHRAIYA - PANEL LAWYER )
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by Sessions Judge, Sehore in S.T. No.92/2008 whereby the
appellant has been convicted under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence and in
default, to further undergo RI for 3 months.
2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellant, Ms. Pushpanjali Dwivedi,
Advocate who is present in the court, has been requested to assist the Court on
behalf of the appellant as amicus curiae.
3 . As per prostitution story on 07.04.2008 at about 20:45 PM in front of
Chandak General Store the appellant assaulted the complainant and with the
intention to kill him caused him injury on head and different parts of the body.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution
failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial, the appellant
remained in custody for one day. She prayed for acquittal of the appellant.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State
supported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved the
incident and the learned sessions Court has rightly convicted the appellant under
Section 324 of Indian Penal Code.
6. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of
record, it appears that FIR was lodged at P.S. Ichhawar District Sehore on
07.04.2008 against the appellant which was registered as Crime No. 99/2008
under Section 307 of the IPC. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.
7. Learned Trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by
judgment dated 19.03.2009 convicted the appellant under Section 324 of the
IPC and sentenced as stated herein above, however, the findings recorded by
the learned Trial Judge are based on due appreciation of evidence and do not
require any interference. The judgment of conviction under Section 324 of the
IPC is upheld.
8. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year
2008, appellant was 22 years old at the time of incident. The appellant remained
in custody for 21 days, the prosecution has not brought any past criminal
antecedents of the appellant on record and there is no minimum sentence has
been prescribed under Sections 324 of Indian Penal Code, I deem it proper to
reduce the jail sentence of the appellant to the extent of the period which he has
already undergone.
Accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced to the period already
undergone by the appellant, and the sentence of fine is affirmed. Order of trial
court regarding disposal of property is also affirmed. The appellant is on bail,
his personal bonds and bail bonds be discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is
partly allowed.
9. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Akm
