Lallu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 4200 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Lallu 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. 854 of 2009

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    LALLU S/O NANNU KACHHI, AGED ABOUT 50
                                YEAR S, R/O VILL. JORAN, P.S.ALIPURA, DISTT.
                                CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    RAMDEEN S/O NANNU KACHI, AGED ABOUT 60
                                YE A R S , R/O VILL.JORAN PS.ALIPURS DISTT.
                                CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    KALEKTAR @ KALUTA S/O LALU KACHHI, AGED
                                ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O VILL.JORAN PS.ALIPURA,
                                DISTT. CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    DHANIRAM S/O RAMDIN KACHHI, AGED ABOUT
                                19        YEARS, VILL.JORAN  PS.ALIPURA
                                DISTT.CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....APPELLANTS
                          (BY SHRI SAURABH SINGH SENGAR - ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH TH.P.S.ALIPURA,
                          DISTT. CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                              .....RESPONDENT/STATE
                          (BY SHRI MANISH MUKHRAIYA - 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 appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, Chhatarpur (M.P.) in Special Case No.87/2006 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 325/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months with fine of Rs.1000/- and Section 325/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months with fine of Rs.1000/- and under Section 342 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three months with default stipulations.

2 . As none appeared on behalf of the appellants, Shri Manish Kumar Mukhraiya, Advocate who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist the Court on behalf of the appellants as amicus curiae.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the incident was

of the year 2006. The appellants have no criminal antecedents. There was no mens rea behind the incident so a liberal view on the point of sentence be taken by the Court. So he prayed that the sentence be reduced to period already undergone.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State supported the finding of conviction. He said that Court is at liberty to consider the case on the point of sentence.

5. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal o f record, FIR was lodged on 16/6/2006 and offence under Sections 448,323,294,506-B,342 and 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(v)(x) of the SC/ST Act has been registered against the appellants. After investigation charge sheet was filed.

6. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by judgment dated 8/4/2009 convicted the appellants under Sections 325/34, 325/34 and 342 of IPC and sentenced as stated herein above, however, the findings of conviction of accused/appellants recorded by the learned trial Judge

are based on due appreciation of evidence and do not require any interference.

7. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year 2006, the appellants remained in custody for 24 days (since 26/6/2006 to 20/7/2006) and there is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under the aforesaid offence. In this case of conviction, keeping in view the long pendency of this appeal and keeping in view that appellants are facing mental agony since then and that prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellants. They did not misuse the liberty granted under the bail. In the considered opinion of this court, the sentence of imprisonment under the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone.

8. Accordingly, the jail sentence in the aforesaid offence is reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine amount is maintained. The appellants are on bail, their personal bonds and bail bonds be discharged. The order of the trial Court regarding disposal of the property, if any, shall be intact. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.

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

(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE m/-