Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Bahadur Singh @ Pappu 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. 1703 of 2008
BETWEEN:-
VIJAY BAHADUR SINGH @ PAPPU S/O S/O BANDHULAL
CHAUHAN, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, VILL.
KUKUDIJHAR, P.S. KOTAWALI, SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS. NEERJA AGRAWAL - AMICUS CURIAE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DISTT. SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI DINESH PATEL - DY. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
STATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h 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 29.07.2008 passed by the learned Special
Judge Sidhi, District Sidhi (M.P.) in S.C. No.09/07, whereby learned Judge
found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the
IPC and directed to suffer R.I. for six months with fine of Rs.1000/- and with
default stipulation.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,
crime was registered against the appellant at Police Station Ajaak Sidhi, District
Sidhi for commission of offence punishable under Sections 354 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 that the
appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 354 of the
IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the impugned
judgment, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant expressly gave up his challenge to
the findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellant is
concerned. In other words, learned counsel for the appellant accepted the
finding of conviction passed against the appellant, however, he challenged the
quantum of punishment alone. It is submitted that he will not involve in such
criminal activities in future. Appellant was in custody from 01.04.2007 to
06.04.2007. It is further submitted that this case is pending since 2008 and at
that time there was no minimum sentence prescribed under Section 354 of IPC
but the said Section was amended from 03.02.2013 wherein one year of
minimum sentence has been prescribed under Section 354 of IPC. He further
submitted that having regard to all circumstances which resulted in appellant's
conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the appellant was facing the
trial before the concerned Court since 2007 and this appeal is pending since
2008, therefore, he prayed that his jail sentence be reduced suitably.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that after
appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Court below have
rightly found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence, therefore, no
grounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellant,
hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that after
appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Court below have
rightly found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence, therefore, no
grounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellant,
hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. 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 appellant.
8 . Though the appellant has 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 findings of the trial Court is based upon
proper appreciation of oral and document evidence, therefore, upheld the
findings of conviction under Section 354 of the IPC recorded by the trial Court.
9. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and
period of jail sentence already undergone by him which is about 06 days and
this appeal is pending since 2008 and the appellant is facing trial since 2007, I
am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the appellant
is sentenced for the period already undergone by him with some enhancement in
the fine amount.
10. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned
conviction is hereby maintained. However, the jail sentence imposed on
appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the sentence
of fine is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/- under Section 354 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 appellant shall suffer 1 month R.I. Appellant is
on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. Amount of fine, if any, deposited
earlier shall be adjusted.
14. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal appeal stands
partly allowed and disposed of.
15. Let a copy of this order along with record be sent to the court below
for information and necessary compliance.
16. At the end, it is our duty to record words of appreciation in favour
of Ms. Neerja Agrawal - Amicus Curiae who assisted this Court in disposal of
this appeal which was pending since 2008. Her assistance is acknowledged.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
shahina
