Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Uike vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2018
-1-
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
(ANIL UIKE VS. STATE OF M.P.)
Cr.A.No.1089/2018
Jabalpur; Dated 26/02/2018
Shri PC. Paliwal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri BP. Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA.No.2093/2018, which is an application filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw this application.
Prayer is accepted.
Accordingly, application is dismissed as withdrawn. Heard finally at motion stage.
This appeal has been filed under Section 376(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction dated 30/11/2015 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Amarwada, District Chhindwara in ST.No.197/2015, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 436, 352 of the IPC and directed to suffer R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulation.
Brief facts of the case are that on 24/04/2015 at 2:20 PM complainant Rajwati lodged a report at Police Station Amarwada, District Chhindwara to the effect that she is resident of village Chikhli Mukasa, District Chhindwara and her marriage was performed before 12-13 years with appellant Anil Uike. It is alleged that on 23/04/2015 at 8-9:00 PM appellant came to her house and caught hold her neck. Somehow, she could escaped and ran away from there. Thereafter, appellant set fire her house, due to which her house and house hold articles was burnt. On that report, police registered Crime No.179/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC and after investigation filed charge-sheet against appellant before JMFC, Amarwada, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. On that charge-sheet ST.No.197/2015 was registered. Learned ASJ framed -2- charge against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 436 the IPC and tried the case. The appellant abjured his guilt and took the defence that he has been falsely implicated in the crime. However after trial, learned ASJ found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 352, 436 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment appellant preferred this appeal.
Although, apart from the quantum of sentence appellant in this appeal has also challenged the legality of the conviction, but during course of the arguments learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not want to press the appeal on the finding of conviction.
Otherwise also from the evidence produced by the prosecution, finding of conviction of the trial Court appears to be correct. So finding of conviction of trial Court is affirmed.
On the point of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant/accused is first offender. The appellant is in jail since 25/04/2015. Further, the appellant has no criminal past. So, he be released on sentence already undergone.
Certainly, the pre and past incidents, conduct of the appellant, cannot be lost sight of and can be taken as mitigating circumstances. So looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to the fact that the appellant is in jail since 25/04/2015, the substantive jail sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 436 of the IPC against appellant is reduced to the period already undergone and sentence of fine awarded by the trial Court under Section 436 & 352 of the IPC shall remain intact.
The impugned judgment of the trial Court is modified accordingly. Hence, this appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge as/ Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2018.02.26 17:47:59 +05'30'