Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra @ Kaju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON 22ND FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1592 OF 2006
BETWEEN:-
MAHENDRA ALIAS KAJU S/O RAJENDRA
PRASAD YADAV, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE MOHSAM P.S. SIHORA TEHSIL
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(MS. HEMLATA KSHATRIYA - AMICUS CURIAE)
AND
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI MANOJ KUMAR SINGH - ADVOCATE FOR STATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Criminal Appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the Court
passed the following:
ORDER
This appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. against the
judgment of conviction dated 14.08.2006 passed by the Learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Sihora, District- Jabalpur (M.P.) in S.T. No.194/2006,
whereby learned Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable
under Section 363 of the IPC and directed to suffer R.I. for three months with
fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,
Crime No.179/2006 was registered against the appellant at Police Station
Sihora District Jabalpur (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under
Sections 363, 366 and 342 of the 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 has acquitted the
appellant from the offence punishable under Sections 366 and 342 of IPC and
found him guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 363 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 appellant remain in custody
from 05.04.2006 to 13.04.2006 and counsel assures that he will not involve in
such criminal activities in future. It is also 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 the date of his incarceration, therefore, he prayed that his jail sentence
be reduced suitably.
5. Learned Panel Lawyer 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. 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.
7. 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 363 of the IPC
recorded by the trial Court.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant,
natures of the substance, its quantity and period of jail sentence already
undergone by him which is about 9 days (from 05.04.2006 to 13.04.2006) and
this appeal is pending since 2006 and the appellant is facing trial since 2006, 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.
9. 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.5000/- to Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of enhanced
fine amount, the appellant shall suffer 3 month R.I. 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. Appellant is on bail. His 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. Hemlata Kshatriya - Amicus Curiae who assisted this Court in disposal of
this appeal which was pending since 2006. Her assistance is acknowledged.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
shahina
