Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra @ Raju & Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 21 February, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 21 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2662 of 2000
BETWEEN:-
1. RAJENDRA @ RAJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O
SHRI JAMUNA PRASAD JAIN, RESIDENT OF
BANDRI, DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JITENDRA S/O LAXMI CHANDRA JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BANDRI,
DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. NARENDRA @ NANDE S/O LAXMI CHANDRA
JAIN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDENT OF
BANDRI, DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MAHENDRA @ BANTI S/O LAXMI CHANDRA JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BANDRI,
DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI MADAN SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION BANDRI, DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI AJAY TAMRAKAR - PANEL LAWYER)
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 of the
Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
12.10.2000 passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T.
No. 412 of 1999 whereby the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 have been convicted under
Section 323 of IPC and sentenced them to R.I. for 6 months each and Section
325 of IPC and sentenced them to R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-each,
with default stipulations and appellant No.1 has been convicted under Section
323/34 of IPC and sentenced him to R.I. for 6 months and Section 325/34 of
IPC and sentenced him to R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-.
2. The counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants do not want
to press their conviction recorded by the trial Court, however, it is submitted
that the ends of justice would be met, if the jail sentence of the appellants is
reduced to the period already undergone.
3. The counsel for the State has supported the conviction and sentence
recorded by the trial Court.
4. Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and
on perusal of the impugned judgment and other material on record, since
counsel for the appellants has not pressed upon the conviction of the
appellants, therefore, the conviction of the appellants No. 2 to 4 under Sections
323, 325 of IPC and conviction of the appellant No.1 under Sections 323/34,
325/34 of IPC is hereby affirmed.
5. So far as sentence is concerned, the incident took place 24 years ago,
in the considered view of this Court, no fruitful purpose is going to be served
by again sending the appellants to the jail after about 24 years of the incident,
therefore, it would be in the interest of justice if the jail sentence of the
appellants is reduced to the period already undergone and fine amount is
enhanced.
6. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the
appellant Nos.2 to 4 recorded by the trial Court under Sections 323, 325 of IPC
and conviction of appellant No.1 under Sections 323/34, 325/34 of IPC is
hereby affirmed. The jail sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period
already undergone and fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs. 2000/-
each appellants.
7. The appellants are directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before
the trial Court concerned within 15 days from today. The appellants are on bail,
their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged subject to deposit of
aforesaid fine amount.
8. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately along with a copy
of this judgment for information and necessary action.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
sp
