Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manju 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. 934 of 2009
BETWEEN:-
MANJU S/O CHAWAL GOND, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R / O GONIGHAT P.S. CHICHOULI DISTRICT BETUAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ASHISH KURMI - ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
CHICHOULI DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SOMESH GUPTA - PANEL LAWYER )
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
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 Special Judge, Betul District Betul in Special Case
No.312/2008 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 135 of
Indian Electricity Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one
year, u/S 304 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one
year and u/S 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six
months.
2 . As none appeared on behalf of the appellant, Shri Ashish Kurmi,
Advocate who is present in the court, has been requested to assist the Court on
behalf of the appellant as amicus curiae.
3. As per prostitution story on 21.08.2008 at about 12:00 PM a complaint
was registered that his neice not returned back to home from Jungle. He was
gone there for grazing cattles. After that his dead body was recovered from the
river.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution
failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial, the appellant
remained in custody for more than 3 months. He prayed for acquittal of the
appellant.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State
supported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved the
incident and the learned sessions Court has rightly convicted the appellant under
Sections 135 of Electricity Act, 304 A of IPC and 201 of of Indian Penal Code.
6. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of
record, it appears that FIR was lodged at P.S. Chichouli District Betul on
20.08.2008 against the appellant which was registered as Crime No.183/2008
under Section 304-A of the IPC. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.
7. Learned Trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by
judgment dated 16.04.2009 convicted the appellant under Section 135 of
Electricity Act and and u/S 304- A and 201 of the 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 135 of Electricity Act and and u/S 304-
A and 201 of the IPC is upheld.
8. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year
2008, appellant was 35 years old at the time of incident. The appellant remained
in custody for more than 4 months (around 131 days), 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 135 of Electricity Act
and and u/S 304- A and 201 of the IPC, 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
by the appellant, and the sentence of fine is affirmed. Order of trial court
regarding disposal of property, if any, is also affirmed.
10. The appellant is on bail, his personal bonds and bail bonds 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
Akm
