Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohamad Aslam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 23 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1506 of 2007
BETWEEN:-
MOHAMAD ASLAM S/O MOHHAMAD ISMILE, AGED
ABOUT 22 YEARS, NEW AANAD NAGAR RAJA CHOUK
PS. HANUMANTAL JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY NARENDRA LODHY - ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PS. AADHARTAL
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SOMESH GUPTA - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
By 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 14th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court)
Jabalpur, in ST No.20/2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted under
Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to undergo one year RI.
2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Narendra Lodhi,
Advocate who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist the Court on
behalf of the appellant as amicus curiae.
3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in brief are that
accused was charged under Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act and after
trial, he has been found guilty of commission of aforesaid offenc.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from the evidence on
record, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted, alternatively, he submits that in
fact and circumstances of the case, the sentence may be reduced to the period
already undergone. There was no mens ria behind the incident so a liberal view
of the point of sentence be taken by the Court, so he prayed that the sentence
be reduced to period already undergone.
5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer submitted that the findings of learned
trial Court does not call for any interference. Court is at liberty to consider the
matter on the point of sentence.
6. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by
judgment dated 03.07.2007 convicted the appellant under Sections 5 of
Explosive Substance Act 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
under Sections 5 of Explosive Substance Act is upheld.
7. However, looking to the facts that the incident is of the year 2006 since
then the appellant is facing mental agony, the appellant remained in custody for
179 days (from 06.11.2006 to 04.05.2007). Appellant was of 22 years of age
at the time of incident. The prosecution has not brought any past criminal
antecedents of the appellant on record and there is no minimum sentence has
been prescribed under Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act at that time, 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 (179 days) by him and the sentence of
fine amount is maintained. Order of the Trial Court regarding disposal of the
property is also maintained. The appellant is on bail, his personal bond and bail
bond 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
Digitally
L.R.signed by
LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2024.03.06
18:23:21 +05'30'
