Anand vs State of Madhya Pradesh

U.C. Maheshwari, J.—The appellant accused has directed this appeal challenging the sustainability of judgment dated 5.3.1997 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Sessions Trial No. 02/1996, whereby he has been convicted u/s 363 and 366 of IPC, RI for three years in the first count and RI for five years in the second count with a direction to run the sentences concurrently. The appellant''s counsel without challenging any finding of the impugned judgment holding the above mentioned conviction of the appellant has made his limited submissions that considering the long pendency of the case and during such period he has suffered the mental agony of the case and besides this also suffered the jail in judicial custody between 7.11.1995 to 15.11.1995 (nine days) during trial and from the date of passing the impugned judgment by the Trial Court on 5.3.1997 till passing the order for suspension of his remaining jail sentence by this Court on 14.3.1997, i.e. ten days. Thus, by adopting the lenient view his awarded jail sentence be reduced up to the aforesaid period for which he has already undergone under the discretion of the Court. Therefore, the entire factual matrix of the case are not being mentioned in this order. On arising the occasion the same could be taken into consideration from the impugned judgment, in which the same were elaborately stated by the Court below.

On the other hand State counsel by justifying the impugned judgment has seriously opposed the aforesaid prayer of the appellant''s counsel and prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

Having heard the parties, keeping in view their submissions on perusing the record, I have not found any perversity infirmity or any thing contrary to the propriety of law in appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court in holding the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence. Therefore, there is no scope in the case to extend the acquittal to the appellant. Consequently, the alleged conviction of the appellant is hereby affirmed.

Looking to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed by the appellant, I do not find fit to extend the benefit of the provision of Probation of the Offenders Act to him.

Coming to the consider the prayer of the appellant counsel for reducing the awarded jail sentence is concerned, I have found some substance in it. It is apparent fact on record that the appellant is facing the mental agony of this case since long from the date of his arrest and also suffered the jail of eighteen days and as per available record he does not have any criminal antecedents and in such premises, he appears to be first offender. Thus considering all these circumstances by adopting the lenient view, I deem fit to reduce his jail sentence up to the aforesaid period of 18 days for which he has already undergone by imposition of some fine amount with a direction to pay such sum to the victim to sub serve the justice with her also.

Therefore, by affirming the aforesaid conviction of the appellant this appeal is allowed in part and his awarded jail sentence u/s 363 and 366 of IPC are hereby reduced to the aforesaid period of 18 days for which he has already undergone by imposing the amount of fine Rs. 5000/- in each of aforesaid Sections, i.e. Rs. 10,000/- in total. The imposed sum of fine is to be deposited by the appellant in the trial Court within forty five days from today. Failing in depositing the imposed fine amount, he has to suffer further one year R.I. On depositing the imposed fine amount within the aforesaid period, the same be given to the victim-Nilu by calling her in the trial Court through summon. Till this extent the impugned judgment is modified while other findings of the same are hereby affirmed. Appeal is allowed in part, as indicated above.