Kadia and Another vs State of M.P.

Brij Kishore Dube, J.—Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14/12/2007 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Sheopur in Special Case No. 170/2007 (State of M.P. Vs. Kadia and another) convicting the appellants/accused under Sections 323/34 and 324/34 of IPC and thereby sentenced each of them to suffer 03 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 250/- and 01 year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- respectively and it is further directed that both the jail sentences shall run concurrently, the appellants have preferred this appeal u/s 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code). The facts of the case have been detailed in the impugned judgment by the Trial Court and, therefore, this Court does not want to repeat the same overall again.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the appellants does not want to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court. It is further submitted that the appellant No. 1, Kadia undergone the jail sentence for 04 days (from 09/05/2006 to 12/05/2006) and the appellant No. 2, Mahavir undergone the jail sentence of 44 days, (from 09/05/2006 to 12/05/200) and from 15/09/2013 till date. The fine amount has already been deposited. The appellants have no previous criminal conduct and, therefore, the learned counsel prays for reduction of the jail sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants.

The learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal, however, he fairly conceded the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants regarding the period of the sentence served by the appellants.

Learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record found guilt of the appellants and, therefore, convicted and passed the sentence against them for the offence as stated hereinabove. In view of the reasons assigned by the learned Court below for convicting the appellants to be trustworthy, this Court does not want to deviate from the same. As before this Court, the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court against the appellants has not been challenged by the appellants, hence, the aforesaid finding is hereby affirmed.

With regard to the sentence awarded is concerned, the appellants have been sentenced by the learned Trial Court as stated hereinabove. Vide the impugned judgment, it is directed by the learned Trial Court that both the jail sentences shall run concurrently. No previous criminal conduct of the appellants has been proved by the prosecution. As per the record, appellant No. 1, Kadia undergone the jail sentence for 04 days, i.e., from 09/05/2006 to 12/05/2006 and the appellant No. 2, Mahavir undergone the jail sentence for 44 days, i.e., from 09/05/2006 to 12/05/2006 and from 15/09/2013 till date he is continuously serving the sentence. The alleged incident took place on 12/11/2005, i.e., about 08 years before. The appellants are labourers who had suffered the agony of the case in the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. Under these circumstances, the ends of justice would be sub-served, if the jail sentence of the appellant No. 1, Kadia is reduced to the period already undergone by him with enhanced fine of Rs. 4,000/- while the appellant No. 2, Mahavir is sentenced to the period already undergone by him with fine as imposed by the Court below.

Consequently, this appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellants passed by the learned Trial Court under Sections 323/34 and 324/34 of IPC is hereby affirmed but the sentence is set aside and instead thereof, the appellant No. 1, Kadia is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in jail in each offence with fine of Rs. 4,750/- and the enhanced amount of fine of Rs. 4,000/- be deposited within three months from today and in default of payment of fine, he shall serve the rigorous imprisonment for three months. The conviction of the appellant No. 2, Mahavir is reduced to the period already undergone with fine as imposed by the learned Court below and in default of deposit of the fine amount, he has to undergo additional two months rigorous imprisonment. The appellant No. 2, Mahavir is in jail, therefore, he be set at liberty if not required in any other criminal case.

With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is disposed of finally. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance.