Madhya Pradesh High Court
Moti @ Motiram @ Motilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 12 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 764 of 2009
BETWEEN:-
MOTI @ MOTIRAM @ MOTILAL S/O DUHLA @ DUHLI @
DULICHAND, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O PURA
MUNGAWALI PRESENT ADDRESS HOUSING BOARD
COLONY WARD NO 17 GALLAMANDI JHUGGI JHOPRI
DISTT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS. AASHA - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DISTT. RAISEN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SEEMA SAHU - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
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 Session Judge, Raisen in S T No.248/2008 whereby the
appellant has been convicted under Sections 435 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo 6 months SI and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to further undergo
three months SI.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in brief are that on
25.09.2008 at about 8:00 pm, appellant set to fire the crops of rice of
complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from the evidence on
record, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted, alternatively, he submits that in
the fact and circumstances of the case, the sentence may be reduced to the
period already undergone. 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.
4. 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.
5. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of
record, it appears that FIR was lodged at P.S. Kotwali District Raisen on
19.10.2008 against the appellant which was registered as Crime No.473/2008
under Sections 435 of IPC. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed.
6. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by
judgment dated 04.04.2009 convicted the appellant under Sections 435 of 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 Sections 435 of
IPC is upheld.
7. However, looking to the facts that the incident is of the year 2008 since
then the appellant is facing mental agony, appellant remained in custody for 5
days. Appellant was of 40 years of age at the time of incident. The appellant
did not misuse the liberty granted to him under the bail. 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 435 o f I.P.C. at that
time, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellant to the extent of
the period which he has already undergone and accordingly, the jail sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone (5 days) by them and the sentence of
fine amount is maintained. Order of the trial Court regarding disposal of
property is also maintained. The appellant is on bail, his personal bond and bail
bond be discharged. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed.
8. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
L.R.
