Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra Singh 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. 6238 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
DHARMENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI
AJMER SINGH NARWARIYA, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, VILL. BALU KA
PURA P.S. GORMI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
........APPELLANT
(BY SHRI B.S. GOUR - 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 Criminal Appeal has been filed by appellant - Dharmendra
Singh under Section 374 of CrPC being aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 30/11/2017 passed by 5 th
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind (MP) in Case No.263/2016 whereby,
appellant has been convicted under Section 195-A of IPC and sentenced
to undergo Five Years' R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000/-, under Section 506
Part-II of IPC and sentenced to undergo One Year R.I. with fine of
Rs.2,000/- 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, Jeetu Sharma 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 has not given any proof as regards
appellant's involvement in threatening the complainant as well as the
alleged crime. It is further argued that the appellant is facing the
criminal proceedings from the date of incident i.e. 24/06/2009 to till
date and is suffering physically and mentally for the same and the
appellant has already suffered the jail sentence of five years awarded by
the trial court. On these grounds, it is prayed that the appeal filed by the
appellant deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction
deserves to be set aside.
(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) It is settled law that interference in the impugned judgment is
permissible only if the view of trial Court is not only erroneous, but
also unreasonable and perverse. It is also settled principle of law that
only in a case when the judgment of trial Court is stated to be
perverse, then it is open to the High Court to reappraise the
evidence. Scope of interference in an appeal or revision against the
impugned judgment is very limited.
(8) Having considered all the aspects of the matter and after re-
appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, this Court is
satisfied that this is not a case in which this Court may be
justified in interfering with judgment of conviction passed by
learned trial Court. The reasons given by Court below for
convicting the appellant appear to be reasonable and are based on
evidence.
(9) In view of above, this Court finds no merit in this criminal appeal.
However, as per PUD dated, 11/07/2022 received from the Court of 5 th
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind to the effect that appellant -
Dharmendra Singh has been released from jail after completing his jail
sentence and depositing the fine amount as awarded by trial Court.
Since, the appellant has already served the entire jail sentence awarded
by the trial Court and the fine amount has already been deposited,
therefore, nothing survives in this criminal appeal. Accordingly, the
appeal is dismissed while maintaining the conviction of appellant for
the alleged offence as aforesaid.
(10) A copy of this judgment alongwith record be sent to the
concerning trial Court for necessary information and compliance.
(11) Certified copy as per rules
(SUNITA YADAV )
JUDGE
Vpn/-
