Dashrath vs The State Of M.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 4286 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dashrath vs The State Of M.P. on 13 February, 2024

Author: Hirdesh

Bench: Hirdesh

                                                               1
                            IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT INDORE
                                                        BEFORE
                                              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
                                               ON THE 13 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                              CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1318 of 2005

                           BETWEEN:-
                           DASHRATH S/O PREMNARAYANJI PATIDAR, AGED 28
                           YEARS,      OCCUPATION-CULTIVATION       R/O
                           BARKHEDALOYA, P.S.-GAROTH, DISTRICT-MANDSAUR
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANT
                           (SHRI R.K. MANGAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. GAROTH
                           DISTRICT/P.S. A.J.K., MADNSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI MAYANK MISHRA, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER APPEARING ON
                           BEHALF OF ADVOCATE GENERAL)

                                 T h is appeal coming on for order this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                           following:
                                                             JUDGMENT

Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 22.11.2005 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mandsaur in SCST No.41/05, whereby trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sections 354 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo three months' RI with fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for 8 days.

2. 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.

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

4. 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 Sections 354 of IPC. Hence, findings recorded by the trial Court with respect to conviction are affirmed.

5. So far as sentence is concerned, record of the case reveals that incident took place on 15.02.2005, at that time the accused was 28 years old and now he

is more than 47 years old. This is first offence of the accused/appellant. He remained in jail from 22.02.2005 to 23.02.2005, 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.