Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lakhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 May, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 14454 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. LAKHAN S/O BHAGIRATH, AGED ABOUT 22
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: LABOR R/O VILLAGE
KHOKHARIYA P.S. DHAMNOD ISTT. DHAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SANTOSH S/O KAILASH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILLAGE MUHADPURA
KUSMULA P.S DHAMNOD DIST. DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI ANURAG VYAS - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION DHARAMPURI
DISTT. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI GAURAV RAWAT - DY. GOVT. ADVOCATE)
Reserved on :25.04.2024
Pronounced on :14.05.2024
This criminal appeal having been heard and reserved for judgments,
coming on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
With consent of the parties heard finally.
This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. by the
appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.10.2023, passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in ST No.19/2022, whereby the
appellants have been convicted for offence under Sections 363/34 read with
Section 511 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I. with fine of
Rs.500/- with default stipulations.
02. According to prosecution story, on 11.04.2022 prosecutrix along
with her father filed a written complaint at Police Station Dhamnod, District
Dhar that on 10.04.2022 at about 6.00 pm when she was returning along with
her friend after finishing labour work in the village, on the way near the pond
situated adjacent to her house, appellants stopped them, appellant Santosh
asked her to marry him and they forcefully made her to sit in the motorcycle.
When the prosecutrix screamed out for help her parents came in rescue, then
the accused persons fled away from the spot. On the basis of which FIR
bearing crime No.282/2022 was lodged for offence under Sections 363, 366,
511 of IPC, 1860. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharmpuri.
0 3 . Thereafter, the matter was committed to Court of Session. The
learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 363/34, 511 of IPC, 1860
against the appellants. After due consideration, the learned trial Court has
convicted the appellants under Section 363/34 read with Section 511 of IPC
and sentenced for 01 years R.I. with fine and usual default stipulations. The
appellants abjured their guilt and took a plea that they had been falsely
implicated in the present crime and prayed for trial.
04. In support of the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 07
witnesses namely Vitcim (PW-1), Rajaram (father of the prosecutrix) (PW-2),
Muskan (PW-3), Meerabai (Mother of the prosecutrix) (PW-4), Heena Kanesh
(PW-5), S.K. Sawale (PW-6), Monika (P.W.7). No witness has been adduced
by the appellants in their defence.
5 . Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence and argument
adduced by the parties, pronounced the impugned judgment on 04.10.2023 and
convicted the appellants for commission of offence as mentioned above in para
No. 1 of this judgment.
6. The appellants have preferred this criminal appeal on several grounds
but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants did not
press this appeal on merits and has not assailed the finding part of judgment. He
confines his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the
appellants have already undergone three and half months in jail incarceration,
their sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. It is further
submitted that this appeal be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the
appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine
amount or as the Court deems fit.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supports the
impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this appeal.
8. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record,
the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants appears to be just and
proper.
9. However, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in
appreciation of evidence available on record. Further, it is found that the
prosecution case has been well supported by the testimony of witnesses
as well as complainant. The contents regarding incident has been well
fortified not only by the complainant but also by the other witnesses in their
Court statements. The accused persons are evidently identified by the
prosecution witnesses during their statements. The learned Court below has well
considered the material available on record, hence, no infirmity is found in the
impugned order of conviction passed by the Court below, accordingly, the
same is upheld.
10. So far as the omissions and contradictions are concerned, no such
omissions or contradictions have been adverted by learned counsel for the
appellants which goes to the root of the case. In this way, it is found that the
learned trial Court has well considered the material available on record on
proper perspectives and has not committed any error in appreciation of
evidence. Accordingly, no infirmity or illegality is appeared in the impugned
order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, hence, the same is
upheld.
11. So far as the sentence part is concerned, considering the fact that the
appellants are facing the trial for more than 2 years and appellants have already
suffered approximately 3 and 1/2 months in custody, judgment of learned
trial Court is modified to the extent that the sentence of the appellants be
reduced to the period already undergone by them by enhancing the total fine
amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.10,000/- each, which shall be paid by appellants
before releasing from the jail. In case of failure of payment of enhanced fine
amount of Rs.10,000/- before the Court below as stipulated above, the
appellants shall further undergo 2 months S.I. and thereafter complying of the
same, they shall be released from the jail, if not required in any other case after
competition of aforesaid period as directed above.
12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal stands
disposed of.
13. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Court for
necessary information.
14. The judgment of the trial Court regarding disposal of the seized
article, if any, stands confirmed.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
sumathi
