Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul @ Vijay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 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
ON THE 21 st OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2808 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. RAHUL @ VIJAY S/O KAILASH SEN, AGED ABOUT
28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURER TILAKPATH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. LALI @ KHUSHBU D/O KAILASH SEN, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
TILAKPATH KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIJAY SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF SHRI
ASHISH GUPTA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER .)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUHAS PUNDLIK - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
With consent of the parties heard finally.
1 . T his criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14(A)(1) of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989) by
the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.02.2022, passed by the
learned Special Judge (SC/ST[PA] Act) , Mandleshwar in SCATR Case No.
41/2016, whereby the appellant Rahul @ Vijay has been convicted for offence
under Sections 451 and 324 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 6 months
R.I. with fine of Rs.200/- and usual default stipulations under each sections and
appellant Lali @ Kushbu has been convicted for offence under Sections 451
and 323 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I. and Nil with fine
of Rs.200/- and Rs.200/- with default stipulations.
2. According to prosecution story, on 13.04.2016 when the prosecutrix
was at her house, the appellant no.1 called her over phone when she denied to
talk to her over phone, both the appellants came to her house. Appellant no.1-
Rahul proposed her and in response prosecutrix told the appellants to leave the
house however the appellants started abusing her and when prosecutrix called
her son, the appellants started assaulting her and her son due to which he
sustained injury in his stomach. Further allegation is that the appellants also
threatened to kill the prosecutrix if she comes in front of them in future.
3. 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
appellant no.1-Rahul @ Vijay has remained 19 days in jail incarceration and
appellant no.2-Lali @ Kushbu was in custody for 3 days, their sentence be
reduced to the period already undergone. It is further submitted that the
appellants deserve some leniency as they have already suffered the ordeal of the
trial since 2016 i.e. for a period of 8 years. 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.
4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supports the
impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this appeal.
5. 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.
6. 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 complainant as well as documentary evidence. 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.
7. So far as, the sentence of the appellants are concerned, in view of the
submissions made by the counsel for the appellants that the appellants have
suffered 19 days and 3 days out of their jail sentence of 6 months, so also
looking to the gravity of the offence, short sentence awarded to the appellants
this Court finds it expedient to partly allow this appeal by affirming the
conviction of the appellants by reducing the sentence to the extent of already
undergone period by enhancing the fine amount to some extent.
8.Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed and the sentence
awarded to the appellant no. 1 Rahul @ Vijay is concerned, the sentence for
offence under Section 451 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone
by increasing the fine amount from Rs.200/- to Rs.10,000/- and 324 of IPC is
reduced to the period already undergone by increasing the fine amount from
Rs.200/- to Rs.5000/-. So far as appellant no.2 Lali @ Khushbu is concerned,
the sentence for offence under Section 451 of IPC is reduced to the period
already undergone by increasing the fine amount from Rs.200/- to Rs.10,000/-
and maintaining the fine amount imposed under Section 323 of IPC 1860.
9 . The enhanced fine amount shall be paid by the appellants within a
period of two months from today, If the appellants fail to deposit the aforesaid
enhanced fine amount within the aforesaid stipulation period, they will suffer 3
months of simple imprisonment in default under each sections.
10. If the whole fine amount is recovered, out of the total fine amount,
Rs.10000/- shall be paid to the injured Sandeep under Section 357(3) of
Cr.P.C. by the trial Court.
11. The fine amount, if already deposited as well as the compensation
amount paid to the injured if any shall be adjusted.
12. The bail bond of the appellants shall be discharged after depositing
the fine amount.
13. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
necessary compliance.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
sumathi
