Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jeetu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 February, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 28th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11199 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
JEETU S/O SHRI RAMNARAYAN
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/O GRAM GAJNA, POLICE
STATION PHOOP, DISTRICT BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
........APPELLANT
(BY SHRI UPENDRA KUMAR
SHRIVAS - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH POLICE STATION
MEHGAON, DISTRICT BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
........RESPONDENT
(BY ATUL SHARMA - PANEL
LAWYER)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
This is a jail appeal preferred by the appellant who is in
confinement being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 25/11/2019 passed by Second Additional Sessions
Judge, Bhind (MP) in Case No.1500200/2016 whereby, appellant has
been convicted under Section 195-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo
Five Years' R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/-, under Section 506 Part-II of IPC
and sentenced to undergo One Year R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- with
default stipulations.
(2) Succinctly, the case of prosecution as discernible from the FIR is
that complainant namely, Ramsiya Sharma filed a written complain to
the concerned Police Station alleging that on 24.06.2009 at about 3:00
p.m. when he was near the Service Centre situated behind his house,
two persons namely, Dharmendra Singh and present appellant/accused
came there on a bike and threatened the complainant for entering into
compromise in a pending case and turned hostile all the witnesses. They
had also threatened to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- which had been
spent in court proceedings. At that time, the younger brother of
complainant namely, Banwari came there on seeing him, the accused
persons fled away. The accused persons had shot dead the brother of
complainant on 18th January and committed robbery of mobile phone
and motorcycle.
(3) Upon the report, crime no.146/2009 was registered at Police
Station Mehgaon, District Bhind (M.P.) for the offence punishable
u/Ss.195-A, 506-B & 34 of IPC against the appellant. On lodging of
F.I.R., criminal law was triggered and set in motion, Investigation
Agency recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses, prepared the
spot map, arrested the accused and after completion of all due
formalities, the charge-sheet was submitted before the trial Court having
criminal jurisdiction. After conclusion of trial, trial Court convicted and
sentenced the present appellant for the offences, as mentioned above.
(4) It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the
judgment impugned passed by the trial Court is contrary to the evidence
available on record. There are contradictory statements in the entire
prosecution witnesses. The investigating Officer while recording the
statements of the witnesses have not given any proof as regards
appellant's involvement in threatening the complainant as well as the
alleged crime. It is further contended that the appellant has already
served five years of incarceration as awarded by learned trial Court.
Therefore, he does not intend to challenge the finding of conviction;
however, he prays that the jail sentence awarded to the appellant be
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
(5) Per contra, the learned Counsel for the State while supporting the
impugned judgment has submitted that the trial Court has rightly
convicted and sentenced the appellant.
(6) Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the
material available on record.
(7) From bare perusal of record, this Court is of the view that no
illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court in convicting
and sentencing the appellant, hence, the judgment of conviction passed
by the learned trial Court requires no interference and the same is
hereby maintained.
(8) So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, considering the
facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of offence as well as
the fact that appellant is facing the criminal proceedings since the year,
2009 and has already served substantive period of jail sentence, the
purpose would be served in case the jail sentence awarded to the
appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
(9) In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed. The findings
of conviction are hereby maintained with the modification to the extent
that the jail sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period
already undergone subject to deposit of fine amount as imposed by
learned trial Court for the offences punishable u/Ss.195-A, 506 Part-II
of IPC. In case of non-deposit of fine amount, the appellant shall further
undergo additional imprisonment, as awarded by trial Court. Appellant
is in jail. He be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case.
(10) Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information
and necessary compliance.
(11) With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed of.
(12) Certified Copy as per rules.
(SUNITA YADAV )
JUDGE
Vpn/-
