Kalu vs The State Of M.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 3815 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Kalu vs The State Of M.P. on 8 February, 2024

Author: Hirdesh

Bench: Hirdesh

                                                              1
                            IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT INDORE
                                                        BEFORE
                                              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
                                               ON THE 8 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                              CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 591 of 2001

                           BETWEEN:-
                           KALU S/O GHEESHA TANWAR, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O
                           VILLAGE-BHOOMRIYA, POLICE STATION-BHOJPUR,
                           DISTRICT-RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....APPELLANT
                           (MS. HEMLATA GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATION-
                           BHOJPUR, DISTRICT-RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENT
                           (SHRI MAYANK MISHRA,           LEARNED      PANEL    LAWYER      FOR    THE
                           RESPONDENT/STATE)

                                 T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                           following:
                                                             JUDGMENT

Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure against the judgment dated 02.05.2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora) in Session Trial No.125/2000, whereby trial Court has convicted the appellant under 457 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and under 354 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months' R.I. with fine of Rs.250/-, with default clause respectively.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submits that he is not challenging impugned judgment on merits and is confining his argument to

sentence only.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.

4. So far as conviction is concerned, I have gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution and examined it minutely. From perusal of overall evidence on record, it is clearly established that learned trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellant under Sections 457 and 354 of IPC. Hence, findings recorded by the trial Court with respect to conviction are affirmed.

5. So far as sentence is concerned, record of the case reveals that incident took place on 07.05.2000, at that time the accused was 40 years old and now he is more than 63years old. This is first offence of the accused/appellant. He

remained in jail from 17.05.2000 to 27.05.2000, hence, the end of the justice would be best served, if his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone with the fine imposed by the court below.

6. In view of the aforesaid, present appeal is partly allowed and conviction of the appellant by the trial court is upheld. So far as sentence awarded by the trial court is concerned, same is modified to the period already undergone by the appellant in jail. Since, appellant is on bail, his bail bonds be discharged.

7. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned court for compliance. The present appeal is partly allowed.

Let the record of the trial court be sent back.

(HIRDESH) JUDGE N.R.