Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rana vs The State Of M.P. on 9 February, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 132 of 2000
BETWEEN:-
1. RANA S/O KIKARAM AGE 22 YEARS R/O SHIVAJI
ROAD BARNAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PARMANAND S/O SHANKARLAL, AGED ABOUT 22
YEARS, OCCUPATION: NONE KHOOP R/O SHIVAJI
ROAD BARNAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MUKESH S/O LAXMINARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 24
YEARS, OCCUPATION: NONE R/O SHIVAJI ROAD
BARNAGAR UJJAIN MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI SHIVENDRA SINGH RAWAT - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THORUGH POLICE STATION
BARNAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(MS.MAMTA SHANDILYA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This criminal appeal filed under section 374 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence dated 18.01.2000 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No.267/1992, whereby the appellants have been convicted under section 148, 307/149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI of 2-2 years each with fine of Rs.500/- and 5 years RI Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 10/02/2023 3:38:57 PM 2 each with fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulations. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that total six accused persons were prosecuted by the trial Court. Out of six, one was acquitted and two have died during the trial.
Counsel for applicant submits that the appellants have already undergone jail sentence of 1 month and 15 days and the incident had taken place in the year 1991. The appellants were on bail during trial, appeal and revision and did not misuse the liberty. They maintained good record and relation with the complainant. No purpose would be served in sending the appellants in jail after such long period. Therefore, the appellants may be sentenced to the period already undergone and fine amount may be increased which may be directed to be paid to the complainant Dilip.
Counsel for State do not dispute the aforesaid facts. After hearing learned counsel for parties and taking into consideration the jail sentence of the appellants and the period already undergone by them, I am of the opinion that a case is made out for sentencing the appellants to the period already undergone with enhancement of fine amount. Further the incident had taken place in the year 1991 and the appellants have maintained good record and did not misuse the liberty. No purpose would be served in sending the appellants in jail after such long period.
Therefore, the present criminal appeal is partly allowed. The conviction is maintained. The jail sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them and the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.5000/- and from Rs.2000/- to Rs.5000/- each in both the sections. The enhanced amount shall be paid to the complainant Dilip by the trial court. The enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the appellants within the period of two Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 10/02/2023 3:38:57 PM 3 months from today before the trial Court. The bail bonds of the applicant shall be discharged after deposit of the fine amount. In case if the applicant fails to deposit the fine amount within the aforesaid period, the applicant shall undergo six months RI.
CC as per rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE Sourabh Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 10/02/2023 3:38:57 PM