AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellants have filed this present appeal challenging the judgment dated 14/08/2015 delivered by I ASJ, Shujalpur, District-Shajapur in S.T. No.90/2011 whereby convicted the appellants under Section 420/34, 467 readwith Section 34 (3 counts) and 468 readwith Section 34 (3 counts) of IPC sentencing them to undergo 5 years RI, 7 years RI and 5 years RI with fine of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.5,000/- with default stipulations respectively, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
Facts in brief are that on 07/09/2010 complainant-Rakesh Mewada has filed a written complaint at Police Station-Akodiya, District-Shajapur to the effect that on 28/12/2009, his cousin brother-Pappu alongwith other co-accused persons cheated his family members and other persons also, on the promise that they will give job in Forest Department as Forest Security by issuing a forged and fabricated appointment letter meaning thereby they committed forgery/deceived the innocent persons. Thereafter FIR was registered. The police registered the case under Section 420/34 (3 counts), 467/34 (3 counts) 468/34 (3 counts) of IPC. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court. Prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and the appellants were charged, tried and convicted as stated in para 1 above.
The appellants have preferred this appeal on several grounds but during course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he does not want to press the appeal on merits. His only contention is that the sentence of the appellants be reduced to the period already undergone. It is submitted that appellants are first offender and has no criminal antecedents. Neither prior to the alleged incident nor thereafter any criminal case is ever registered against them. Appellant-Anand was in custody for a period of about 5 years, 3 months and 18 days, appellant-Raees was in custody for a period of 5 years, 2 months and 6 days and appellant-Pappu @ Pradip was in custody for a period of 3 years, 9 months and 14 days approximately, out of the sentence awarded to them, therefore, their jail term be reduced to the period already undergone, specially keeping in view the pendency of the appeal since 2015.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that after due appreciation of the evidence on record, learned Court below has found the appellants guilty for the offence and no illegality has shown against the appellants. In such circumstances, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment passed in the case of Dharmendra Singh vs. State of M.P. reported in 2012 Cr.L.R. (M.P.) 232, in which the Court has upheld the conviction, however, as the incident is of 17 years old, the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced from three years to three months. Similarly, in the case of Ratiram and another Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2009 Cr.L.R. (M.P.) 92. In this case also, this Court has held that being 17 years old case, sentence reduced to the period already suffered.
In the present case also, the incident took place on 28/12/2009 i.e. more than 09 years ago. From perusal of the record, it reveals that the appellant-Anand was in custody for a period of about 5 years, 3 months and 18 days, appellant-Raees was in custody for a period of 5 years, 2 months and 6 days and appellant-Pappu @ Pradip was in custody for a period of 3 years, 9 months and 14 days approximately.
However, considering the fact that the Appellant-Anand was in custody for a period of about 5 years, 3 months and 18 days, appellant-Raees was in custody for a period of 5 years, 2 months and 6 days and appellant-Pappu @ Pradip was in custody for a period of 3 years, 9 months and 14 days approximately and have undergone the aforesaid period of sentence and under these circumstances, considering the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants and also considering the nature of the incident, keeping in view the fact that appeal is pending since 2015 and other facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, the ends of justice would be sub-served, if the sentence of the appellants are reduced to the period already undergone. Therefore, I partly allow the appeal by modifying the sentence, I impose sentence to appellant-Anand who was in custody for a period of about 5 years, 3 months and 18 days, appellant-Raees who was in custody for a period of 5 years, 2 months and 6 days and appellant-Pappu @ Pradip who was in custody for a period of 3 years, 9 months and 14 days approximately i.e. the period which has already been suffered by the appellants by imposing fine of Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.5,000/- each by appellants, which shall be deposited by them before the concerned trial Court within a period of two months from today.
Upon deposition of fine amount, appellant-Anandsingh and appellant-Raees Khan, who are in jail, be released forthwith, if not required in any other case and appellant-Pappu @ Pradip who is on bail, therefore, learned trial Court is directed to take appropriate initiatives, as per law for deposition of fine amount from appellant-Pappu @ Pradip.
The order of the learned trial Court regarding disposal of the case property is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any shall stands discharged.
With the aforesaid modifications, all the appeals are partly allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned lower Court alongwith the record for its information and compliance.
C.C. as per rules.