Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh @ Bahadur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41831
1 CRA-799-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD SHARMA
ON THE 1 st OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 799 of 2006
RAJESH @ BAHADUR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rupesh Patel - Advocate for appellant No.2-Shyam Bai.
Shri Aditya Narayan Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, arguments are
heard finally.
This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellants assailing the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.04.2006 passed in Sessions
Trial No.236/2005 (State of MP Vs. Rajesh @ Bahadur & another ) by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, District-Jabalpur (MP) whereby
the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 498-
A/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo three years RI with fine of
Rs.2,000/- with default stipulations. It would be apt to mention here that
appellants-accused vide above judgment, were acquitted of the charge
under Section 304-B of IPC.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41831
2 CRA-799-2006
lodged, FIR bearing Crime No.286/2004 was registered against the
appellants/accused at Police Station Majhgawan, District-Jabalpur for
commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 34 of
IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
before the competent Court. Charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 34 of
IPC were framed against the appellants/accused. Accused/appellants
have refuted the charges and claimed to be tried. Statements of the
witnesses were recorded.
3. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and
appreciating the evidence led by the parties, learned Trial Court found
the appellants guilty for commission of offence punishable under
Sections 498-A/34 of the IPC and sentenced them as mentioned
preceding paragraph No.1. Being aggrieved with the impugned
judgment, the appellants have preferred this criminal appeal before this
Court.
4. It is informed by learned counsel for the appellants that
appellant No.1-Rajesh @ Bahadur has died during the pendency of the
appeal. Vide documents submitted on 29.01.2008 by the State, it is
revealed that appellant No.1 Rajesh @ Bahadur has expired during the
pendency of this appeal on 16.07.2007. Some documents regarding the
death of appellant-Rajesh @ Bahadur are also annexed with the report. In
view of the aforesaid, vide order dated 15.04.2008 passed by this Court,
this appeal stands abated qua appellant No.1 Rajesh @ Bahadur.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41831
3 CRA-799-2006
5. Arguments on behalf of appellant No.2 Shyam Bai are heard.
6. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits
that he does not want to challenge the conviction of appellant No.2-
Shyam Bai recorded under Section 498-A/34 of IPC by the Trial Court,
but has prayed for reduction of jail sentence. It is submitted that the
incident had taken place in the year 2004 i.e. almost 21 years ago. It is
further submitted that appellant No.2 has already undergone incarceration
for more than a period of three months & seven days so far. Therefore, it
is prayed that appellant's jail sentence may be reduced/modified to the
extent of period already undergone by her as no fruitful purpose would
get served by keeping her behind the bars.
7. Learned counsel for the State has supported the findings
recorded by the Trial Court and has submitted that after appreciating the
evidence produced by the prosecution, the Trial Court has rightly found
the accused guilty for the aforesaid offence and has prayed for dismissal
of the appeal.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
impugned judgment and record of Trial Court.
9. On appreciation of the evidence on record, I find no infirmity
and no illegality in findings of conviction recorded by the Trial Court.
Therefore, findings of appellant's conviction for the alleged offence
under Section 498-A/34 of IPC are upheld.
10. As far prayer for reduction in jail sentence is concerned, it
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41831
4 CRA-799-2006
cannot be over looked that appellant is facing the agony for the last
approximately 21 years. Therefore, having taken into consideration all
the facts and circumstances of the case, the custodial period already
undergone in jail by appellant-Shyam Bai and also the fact that the
incident had taken place in the year 2004 i.e. almost 21 years ago, I am of
the view that ends of justice would meet if jail sentence awarded to
appellant-Shyam Bai is reduced to the period already undergone by her.
Thus, as far the jail sentence of appellant-Shyam Bai is concerned, it is
modified and reduced to the period already undergone by her subject to
deposit the entire fine amount (as directed by the Trial Court), if already
not deposited.
11. Registry/trial Court is directed to prepare super-session
warrant/release warrant and to send the same to the Superintendent of
jail/Jail authorities concerned with a direction that if appellant/accused
Shyam Bai is not required in any other case, she be released in this case
forthwith.
12. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as directed by the
Trial Court has not been deposited by appellant No.2-Shyam Bai till
today, she is directed to deposit the same before the Trial Court within a
period of thirty days from her release. If fine amount as directed by the
Trial Court is not deposited within aforesaid period, appellant would
surrender herself to serve out the entire jail sentence as awarded by the
learned Trial Court with default stipulations.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41831
5 CRA-799-2006
13. The order of the Trial Court with regard to the disposal of the
property is affirmed.
14. Learned Trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid
compliance.
15. This appeal so far as it relates to appellant No.2 Shyam Bai is
disposed of with the aforesaid modification in the sentence.
16. A copy of this order along with record of the Trial Court be
sent immediately to the Court concerned for information and necessary
action.
17. Certified copy as per rules.
(BHAGWATI PRASAD SHARMA)
JUDGE
@shish
