Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sevakram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2024

Author: Hirdesh

Bench: Hirdesh

                                                              1
                            IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT INDORE
                                                        BEFORE
                                              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
                                                   ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2024
                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1813 of 2013

                           BETWEEN:-
                           SEVAKRAM S/O SHRI BALIRAM BALAI, AGED ABOUT 26
                           YEAR S , OCCUPATION: SETTING 488 IDRIS NAGAR
                           MUSAKHEDI INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....APPELLANT
                           (NONE FOR THE APPELLANT)

                           AND
                           THE   STATE    OF   MADHYA   PRADESH               GOVT.
                           THRU.P.S.PALASIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI MAYANK MISHRA, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
                           RESPONDENT/STATE)

                                 T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                           following:
                                                            JUDGMENT

Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure against the judgment dated 17.12.2013 passed by Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Session Trial No.607/2013, whereby trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/-, with default clause.

2. Heard learned counsel for the respondent/State and perused the record of the case.

3. So far as conviction is concerned, I have gone through the evidence

adduced by the prosecution and examined it minutely. From perusal of overall

evidence on record, it is clearly established that learned trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellant under Section 392 of IPC. Hence, findings recorded by the trial Court with respect to conviction are affirmed.

4. So far as sentence is concerned, record of the case reveals that incident took place on 27.04.2013, at that time the accused was 26 years old and now he is more than 36 years old. This is first offence of the accused/appellant. He remained in jail from 05.06.2013 to 17.12.2013, hence, the end of the justice would be best served, if his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone with the fine imposed by the court below.

5. In view of the aforesaid, present appeal is partly allowed and conviction of

the appellant by the trial court is upheld. So far as sentence awarded by the trial court is concerned, same is modified to the period already undergone by the appellant in jail. Since, appellant is on bail, his bail bonds be discharged.

6. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned court for compliance. The present appeal is partly allowed.

Let the record of the trial court be sent back.

(HIRDESH) JUDGE N.R.