Madhya Pradesh High Court
Roshiya @ Ramsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 21 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1663 of 2007
BETWEEN:-
1. ROSHIYA @ RAMSINGH S/O KUMAR, AGED
ABOUT 20 YEARS, MANDWA SARPANCH FHALYA
P.S. NEPANAGAR DISTT. BURHANPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SILDARS/O HICHYA CASTE BAARELA, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, MANDWA SARPANCH FHALYA
P.S. NEPANAGAR DISTT. BURHANPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY MS. GEETA YADAV - AMICUS CURIAE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI DINESH PATEL - DY. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
STATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against
the judgment of conviction dated 24.07.2007 passed by the Additional Session
Judge, Burhanpur in SC No.249/2006, whereby learned Judge found the
appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323/34 and
506-II of IPC and directed to suffer S.I. for 1 month with fine of Rs.300 (each),
R.I. for six months with fine of Rs.500/- (each) and R.I. for one year with fine
of Rs.500/- (each) respectively with default stipulations.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,
Crime was registered against the appellants at Police Station Nepanagar, District
Burhanpur (M.P.) for commission o f offence punishable under Sections 294,
323/34 and 506-II of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has
been filed before the competent Court.
3. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and
appreciating the evidence led by parties, learned trial Court found the appellants
guilty for the offence punishable under Section 294, 323/34 and 506-II of IPC
and sentenced them as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the impugned
judgment, the appellants have preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants expressly gave up her challenge to
the findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellants are
concerned. In other words, learned counsel for the appellants accepted the
finding of conviction passed against the appellants, however, she challenged the
quantum of punishment alone. The appellants are the first offender and counsel
assures that they will not involve in such criminal activities in future. It is further
submitted that no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Section 294,
323/34 and 506-II of IPC. It is also submitted that having regard to all
circumstances which resulted in appellants' conviction and further keeping in
view the fact that the appellants were facing the trial since the year 2006 and this
appeal is pending since 2007, therefore, it has been prayed that the appellants be
punished with fine only.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that after
appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Courts below have
rightly found the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offence, therefore, no
grounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellants,
hence, she prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire
record of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal in part upon finding some
force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.
7. Though the appellants have not made any attempt to assail the finding
of his conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether the
findings of the Court below of conviction is legally sustainable or not, I perused
the record and especially therein having so perused, I am satisfied that no case
is made out to interfere in the findings of the Court below on merits. From the
perusal of the record, it reveals that the finding of the trial Court is based on
proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence therefore, upheld the
findings of conviction of appellants under Sections 294, 323/34 and 506-II of
IPC recorded by the Court below.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants,
however, looking to the facts that they are facing the trial since the year 2006,
the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellants
on record. There is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Sections
294, 323/34 and 506-II of IPC, I deem it proper to set aside the jail sentence of
appellants with some enhancement in the fine amount.
9. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned conviction
is hereby maintained. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs.300/-
to Rs.500/- under Section 294 of IPC, Rs.500/- to Rs.1000/- under Section
323/34 of IPC and Rs.500/- to Rs.3000/- under Section 506-II of IPC which
shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount
within the stipulated period, the appellants shall suffer 1 month R.I. Appellants
are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged. Amount of fine, if any,
deposited earlier shall be adjusted.
10. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal appeal stands
partly allowed and disposed of.
11. Let a copy of this order alongwith record be sent to the court below
for information and necessary compliance.
12. At the end, it is our duty to record words of appreciation in favour
of Ms. Geeta Yadav - Amicus Curiae who assisted this Court in disposal of this
appeal which was pending since 2007. Her assistance is acknowledged.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
shahina
