Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gopal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 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. 15593 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
GOPAL S/O SOM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PAINTING 36/1, BHIL COLONY,
MUSAKHEDI, INDORE PRESENT ADDRESS- 190-A/19,
MAYOR NAGAR MUSAKHEDI, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI MANOJ MALVIYA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION AZAD NAGAR
DIST. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI S.K. GUPTA, FOR THE STATE )
.........................................................................................................................................
Heard on: 09.05.2024
Delivered on: 15.05.2024
This appeal was heard and this Court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
T he present appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the
judgment conviction and sentence dated 22.04.2022 passed by the learned 5th
ASJ, Rajgarh in Special Case No.151/2017, whereby, the appellant has been
convicted under Section 354 and 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 02
years and 01 year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- & Rs.500/- with default
stipulations.
2. The appellant has preferred this appeal on several grounds but during
the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant did not press this
appeal on merit and not assail the finding part of judgment. He confines his
argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the appellants have
already undergone almost 11 months in jail incarceration, his jail sentence be
reduced to the period already undergone. It is further submitted that the
appellant deserves some leniency as the appellant already suffered the ordeal of
the trial since 2017. It is further submitted that this appeal be partly allowed and
the sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already
undergone by enhancing the fine amount and giving compensation to the
complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer.
4. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record,
the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be just and
proper.
5 . However, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in
appreciation of evidence available on record. Further, it is found that the
Court below considered the evidence available on record and correctly
found that the case of the prosecution is well supported by the injured,
witnesses and medical testimony. The 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.
6. So far as the sentence of the appellant is concerned, the submissions
have been made by the appellant that the appellant has already deposited the
fine amount before the trial Court. The appellant has suffered the ordeal of
criminal case since 2017 and there is no criminal record/antecedents of the
appellant, therefore, this Court finds it expedient to partly allow this appeal by
affirming the conviction of the appellant by imposing appropriate compensation
for the injured instead of sentencing them for remaining period of jail.
7 . First of all, the Court has to consider the sentence awarded to the
appellant under Section 354 of IPC. Since, the incident had happened on
14.07.2017, hence, the punishment as per the amended provisions of Section
354 of IPC shall not be less than one year which further may extendable for five
years. In this case, the learned trial Court has awarded the sentence of two
years, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, age of the
appellant who is 20 years old and to sub-serve the ends of justice, it would be
appropriate to award sentence to the appellant for one year R.I. under Section
354 of IPC. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 323 of
IPC is affirmed.
8.In view of the aforesaid, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the
sentence under Section 354 of IPC awarded to the appellant is hereby reduced
to one year R.I. by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.10000/-
accordingly. In case of default of payment of fine amount, the appellant shall
undergo 60 days S.I. Out of the fine amount so deposited, Rs.5000/- be paid to
the victim.
09 The appellant is in jail. After depositing the aforesaid fine amount, he
shall be released from the jail. The bail bond of the appellant shall be discharged
after depositing of the enhanced fine amount. The amount of fine if already
deposited and the amount of compensation, if any, shall be adjusted.
10. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized
property stands affirmed.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
necessary compliance.
Pending application, stands closed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
