Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hari Om 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 RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 22 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2184 of 2006
BETWEEN:-
HARI OM S/O JAI NARAYAN GAUR, AGED ABOUT
22 YEARS, R/O CHOWKADI, PS. CHHIPAWAD,
HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS. SEEMA SAHU - ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. PS.
CHHIPAWAD HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI MANOJ JHA - PANEL LAWYER )
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
B y the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by Sessions Judge, Harda
District Harda in ST No.159/2005 whereby the appellant has been
convicted under Section 456 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1
y e a r and fine of Rs.2,000/- and u/s 354 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo RI for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.
2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellant, Ms. Seema Sahu,
Advocate who is present in the court, has been requested to assist the
Court on behalf of the appellant as amicus curiae.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the
trial, the appellant remained in custody from 26.04.2004 to 17.05.2004.
S h e prayed for acquittal of the appellant. Alternatively prayed for
reduction of sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State
supported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly
proved the incident and the learned sessions Court has rightly convicted
the appellant under Sections 456 and 354 of IPC.
5. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal
of record, it appears that FIR was lodged at P.S. Chopawad District
Harda on 23.04.2004 against the appellant which was registered as Crime
No.71/2004 under Section 456, 354 and 355 IPC. After investigation, the
charge-sheet was filed.
6. Learned Trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses
by judgment dated 11.01.2006 convicted the appellant under Section 456
and 354 of IPC and sentenced as stated herein above, however, the
findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge are based on due appreciation
of evidence and do not require any interference. The judgment of
conviction and conviction under Section 456 and 354 of IPC Act is
upheld.
7. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year
2004, the appellant remained in custody 26.04.2004 to 17.05.2004. He was
22 years of age at the time of commission of said offence. The
prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellant
on record and there was no minimum sentence has been prescribed at that
time under Sections 456 and 354 of IPC, I deem it proper to reduce the
jail sentence of the appellant to the extent of the period which he has
already undergone and accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced to the
period already undergone by the appellant and sentenced of fine is
maintained. The order of trial Court regarding disposal of property, if any,
is maintained. The appellant is on bail, his personal bonds and bail bonds
be discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
8. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the
judgment.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Akm
