Shera @ Mithilesh Brahman vs The State Of M.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 12088 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shera @ Mithilesh Brahman vs The State Of M.P. on 3 December, 2025

Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh

Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62747




                                                                  1                          CRA-988-1998
                               IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
                                                   ON THE 3 rd OF DECEMBER, 2025
                                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 988 of 1998
                                                  SHERA @ MITHILESH BRAHMAN
                                                             Versus
                                                       THE STATE OF M.P.
                            Appearance:
                               Shri Naveen Kumar - Advocate for the appellant.
                               Shri N.S. Solanki - Panel Lawyer for the State of M.P.

                                                                 JUDGMENT

The appellant - Shera @ Mithilesh Brahman is present in person. He is identified by his counsel.

His presence is taken on record.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is heard finally.

2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.3.1998 passed by learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, District Rewa in S.T.

No.124 of 1995 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and six months and fine of Rs.12,000/- with default stipulation of six months R.I. under Section 436 of IPC.

3. The allegation against the appellant is of causing mischief by burning house of the complainant- Brijlal Kol as a result of which his grains etc. was burnt and loss of Rs.12,000/- was caused to him.

4. I.A. No.8337 of 2013, an application for compromise of the case

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62747

2 CRA-988-1998 was filed on 9.4.2013. Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this Court had observed that impact of the compromise application shall be considered at the time of final hearing of this appeal.

5. An offence under Section 436 of IPC is not compoundable. Accordingly, I.A. No.8337 of 2013 is dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although he has filed an appeal on merits but his only prayer is that sentence of 2 years and six months and fine of Rs.12,000/- with default stipulation may be modified so that appellant may not go behind the bar as he has never gone to jail. The appellant is serving in a private company.

7. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State of M.P. does not have any

objection if the conviction and sentences is modified as prayed by learned counsel for the appellant.

8. Since the appeal has been filed on merits, therefore this court has perused the statements and other documents on record. On perusal of statements of PW-1- Brijalal Kol, PW-2 - Mohaniya, PW-3 - Phoolkali, PW- 4- Ramgarib, PW-5-Indrakali, PW-6- Ramsajivan, PW-7-Dayanand Tyagi, PW-8- Dr. S.P. Mishra, PW-9-Hiramani Singh Chouhan and the defence witnesses DW-1-Ramakant Tiwari , DW-2 Matganjan Prasad it is seen that the conviction against the appellant is well justified.

9. Accordingly appeal against conviction is dismissed but in the light of compromise although Section 436 of IPC is not compoundable, the sentence can be reduced. Accordingly the sentence imposed upon the appellant under Section 436 of IPC is modified to the extent that the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62747

3 CRA-988-1998 appellant has now to suffer the sentence "till rising of the court" which shall be executed by the concerned trial court. The amount as awarded by learned trial court and its default stipulation is maintained.

10. It is informed by learned counsel for the appellant that fine amount of Rs.12,000/- has already been deposited by the appellant before the trial court.

11. With the aforesaid modification this appeal stands disposed of.

12. Disposal of the case property shall be as per judgment of the trial court.

13. The record of the trial court be sent back.

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE

bks