Dayaram Dehariya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 3863 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dayaram Dehariya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2024

                                                             1
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                           AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
                                              ON THE 9 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 575 of 2009

                          BETWEEN:-
                          DAYARAM DEHARIYA S/O SHIV PRASAD DEHARIA,
                          AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURER R/O
                          VILL. CHAWANMARA, PS KANHIWADA, TEH. & DISTT.
                          SEONI (M.P.)

                                                                                           .....APPELLANT
                          (BY SMT. PUSHPANJALI DWIVEDI - AMICUS CURIAE)

                          AND
                          STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                   THROUGH       PS
                          KANHIWADA, DISTRICT SEONI (M.P.)

                                                                                 .....RESPONDENT/STATE
                          (BY MS. SEEMA SAHU - 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 appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni, in S.T. No.72/2008 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 363 & 366 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500/- and R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to further undergo R.I. for 3 months in each offence.

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. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in brief are that prosecutrix lodged a report alleging therein that the appellant kidnapped her from lawful guardianship of her parents from village and committed sexual assault. On the report, Crime No.105/2008 has been registered against the appellant at Police Station Kanhiwada, District Seoni for commission of Offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from the evidence on record, the appellant is 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 appellant remained in custody for 44 days. The incident is of the year 2008 since then the appellant is facing mental agony. At the time of incident, the appellant was of 18 years of age. He has no criminal antecedent. He is the first offender. As per the record, he 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 she prayed that the sentence be reduced to period already undergone.

5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer submitted that the findings of learned trial Court does not call for any interference. Court is at liberty to consider the matter on the point of sentence.

6. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of record, it appears that FIR was lodged at P.S.Kanhiwada, District Seoni on 21/5/2008 against the appellant which was registered as Crime No.105/2008 under Section 363, 366, 376 of IPC. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed.

7. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by judgment dated 28/2/2009 convicted the appellant under Sections 363 & 366 of 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 363 and 366 of IPC is upheld.

8. However, looking to the facts that the incident is of the year 2008 since then the appellant is facing mental agony, the appellant remained in custody for 44 days. Appellant was of 18 years of age at the time of incident. 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 363 and 366 of Indian Penal Code therefore, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellant to the extent of the period which he has already undergone.

9. Accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone (44 days) by him and the sentence of fine amount is maintained. Order of the trial Court regarding disposal of the property is also maintained.

10. The appellant is on bail, his personal bond and bail bond be discharged. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed.

11. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE m/-