Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh vs State Of M.P. on 4 July, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13717
1 CRA-152-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 4 th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 152 of 2006
MAHESH AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Prabal Pratap Singh Solanki - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - PP for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') has been preferred against the
judgment dated 04.02.2006 passed by the IV Sessions Judge (Fast Track)
Distt. Shivpuri (MP) in Sessions trial No. 214 of 2005, whereby the
appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of
Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo 3-3 years R.I.
with fine of Rs.500-500/- with usual default stipulation.
2. It is admitted position that appellant no.1 is the husband of
deceased Shakuntala Bai and appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the Mother-in-law
and Father-in-law of deceased. Shakuntala Bai was married with appellant
No.1 Mahesh three years prior to the incident.
3. As per the prosecution story, complainant informed PS Bairad
Distt. Shivpuri with respect to the incident that his daughter Shakuntala is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13717
2 CRA-152-2006
being mentally and physically harassed by the appellants and other two co-
accused juvenile Raghuraj and Suraj Singh due to non-fulfillment of their
demand of cash Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle. She has died due to the burn
injuries in suspicious circumstances. After merg inquiry, offence has been
registered under Section 304-B of IPC and 498-A of IPC against the
appellants and other two persons including juvenile. The matter of juvenile
person has been sent to the Juvenile Board.
4. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed
before JMFC Pohri who has committed the matter to the Sessions Court
Shivpuri and thereafter, the matter has been transferred to the IV ASJ, (Fast
Track) Distt. Shivpuri. The trial court has framed the charges under Section
498-A and 304-B of IPC against the appellants. They abjured the charges
and took the plea that they ave been falsely implicated in the matter. The
prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses while the defence has
examined three witnesses. The trial court, after recording evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, acquitted the accused persons from the charges
punishable under section 304-B of IPC but convicted and sentenced the
appellants for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and
sentenced them to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs.500/- each with
default stipulations.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred the
present appeal on several grounds, but during the argument, learned counsel
for the appellants submits that the appellants do not want to press this
Criminal Appeal on merit and are not assailing the conviction and only
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13717
3 CRA-152-2006
assailing the sentence part of the judgment. He has confined his argument
only to the extent of quantum of the sentence and his sole prayer is that the
imprisonment of the appellants be reduced to the period already undergone
by them, as the appellant No.1 Mahesh has already undergone the jail
sentence of about 175 days, appellant No.2 Laxman has already undergone
the jail sentence for about 50 days and appellant No.3 Lachho Bai has
already undergone the jail sentence for about 36 days and they are facing
trial for the last 20 years. Appellants are poor persons and they have no
criminal background. Therefore, their jail sentence should be reduced to the
period already undergone.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the
appeal and prays for its rejection by submitting that the Court below has
rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants and the sentence in question is
sufficient.
7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
8. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the
appellants, although the conviction has not been challenged, but a bare
perusal of the evidence available on record, also justifies the judgment of
conviction passed by the Court below.
9. So far as the quantum of jail sentence is concerned, the submissions
made by learned counsel for the appellants appear to be just and proper. The
present appellants remained in custody for about 175 days, 50 days ad 36
days respectively. At present, the appellant No.1 Mahesh has turned 42
years, appellant No.2 Laxman has turned 86 years and appellant Lachho has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13717
4 CRA-152-2006
turned 81 years of age. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be
appropriate to reduce their jail sentence to the period already undergone by
the appellants by keeping intact the payment part of fine amount by them as
awarded by the trial court.
10. Considering the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed by
maintaining the conviction of the appellants, but reducing their jail sentence
to the period already undergone by them with payment of fine amount.
Appellants are on bail, their surety and bail bond stand discharged.
11. The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by the
trial Court is also affirmed.
12. Let a copy of this order along with record of the Court below be
sent back to the concerned Courts for information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Rks
