Madhya Pradesh High Court
Paras vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 13 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 855 of 2009
BETWEEN:-
PARAS S/O MOHAN SINGH PAWAR, AGED ABOUT 28
YEARS, R/O SAKIN KHARPATHIA PS UGLI, TEH. & DIST.
SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI MANISH MUKHRAIYA - AMICUS CURIAE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PS
KANHIWADA, DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
(BY SHRI NARENDRA LODHI - 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.88/2008
whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 363 and 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, Shri. Manish Mukhraiya
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
complainant lodged a report alleging therein that the appellant kidnapped her
daughter from lawful guardianship of his parents and committed sexual assault.
On the report, Crime No.109/2008 has been registered against the appellant at
Police Station Kanhiwada, District Seoni for commission of offence punishable
under Sections 363 and 366, 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 from 27/5/2008 to 16/7/2008 for 50 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 28 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 rea behind the incident so a liberal view of the point
of sentence be taken by the Court, so he 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
25/5/2008 against the appellant which was registered as Crime No.109/2008
under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC. After investigation, the charge sheet was
filed.
7. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by
judgment dated 30/3/2009 convicted the appellant under Sections 363 and 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 Sections 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
from 27/5/2008 to 16/7/2008 for 50 days. Appellant was of 28 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
(50 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/-
