Mansharam & Another vs The State Of M.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 4082 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mansharam & Another vs The State Of M.P. on 12 February, 2024

Author: Hirdesh

Bench: Hirdesh

                                                             1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                       BEFORE
                                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
                                              ON THE 12 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 155 of 2004

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    MANSHARAM S/O KHUSHYAL, AGED ABOUT 40
                                 Y E A R S , DASHHARA MAIDAN, BARWANI
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    JAGDISH S/O KHUSHYAL, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
                                 DASHHARA MAIDAN, BARWANI (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....APPELLANTS
                           (SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA KAUSHAL, ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF SHRI
                           S.K. PAWNEKAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS)

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

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                           (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

At the outset, learned panel lawyer submits that appellant No.2-Jagdish S/o Khushyal has passed away.

2. In view of above, present appeal stands abated against appellant No.2- Jagdish S/o Khushyal.

3. Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 16.01.2004 passed by Third Additional

Session Judge, Khargone District-West Nimad in Session Trial No.91/2003, whereby trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 324/34 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year RI with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one month.

4. 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.

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

6. 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 Section 324/34 of IPC. Hence, findings recorded by the trial Court with respect to conviction are affirmed.

7. So far as sentence is concerned, record of the case reveals that incident took place on 14.01.2003, at that time the accused was 40 years old and now he is more than 60 years old. This is first offence of the accused/appellant. He remained in jail from 15.01.2003 to 20.01.2003, 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.