IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)

nd ON THE 2 OF MARCH, 2023 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2850 of 2000 BETWEEN:-

1. GAUTAM S/O PYARELAL DHIMAR, AGED ABOUT

35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DEPARTMENT OF WEIGHTS & MEASURES, R/O RETATEK BARGI DAM REHABILITATION FISHERY COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, TIKARIYA, DISTRICT-MANDLA (M.P.)

2. ANUP SINGH S/O PYARELAL DHIMAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, CASTE DHIMAR, OCCUPATION LABROURER, R/O VILLAGE PADMI, P.S.

TIKARIYA DISTRICT-MANDLA (M.P.)

3. MUKESH KUMAR S/O PYARELAL BURMAN, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, CASTE DHIMAR, OCCUPATION LABOURER R/O TIKARIYA, DISTRICT-MANDLA (M.P.)

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI SHIVAM SINGH - ADVOCATE )

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI DINESH PATEL - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE )

This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by Signature Not Verified SAN the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.11.2000 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Atrocities, Mandla in Special Sessions Case No.134/2000, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and under Section 341 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on at about 7:00 p.m. when Barelal was returning from the shop, at that time, due to previous amenity, accused persons came there and assaulted him by means of lathis. Thereafter, they threatened him and also abused him belonging to his caste.

3. After due appreciation evidence acquitted from charges and conviction and sentence as mentioned in paragraph 40 of its judgement.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that he is not challenging the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court and his only prayer is that the appellants have already suffered the jail 10 days and is in jail. It is further submitted that appellants does not want to press this appeal on the point of conviction, however, he requested to reduce the sentence which has already undergone by the appellants, looking to the fact and circumstances of the case. Thus, the ends of justice would be met if the jail sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them with fine.

5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has justified and supported the conviction and sentence passed by trial Court.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the Signature Not Verified SAN material available on record along with the impugned judgment. On perusal of record, it seems that the appellants have been facing criminal proceedings since last 23 years. Considering the nature of offence and other circumstances, as well as in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to reduce the period of jail sentence awarded to the appellants to the period already undergone by them, subject to imposed of fine amount.

7. On perusal of record it reveals that appellants are facing criminal proceedings since last 23 years. Appellants have suffered the jail sentence of about 9 days. It is pertinent to note that this appeal is of the year 2000 and after about 23 years it would be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence of the appellants for the period already undergone by them by imposing a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- under Section 323 and by imposing a fine amount of Rs.500/- under Section 341 which shall be paid to the complainant as compensation.

8. Appellants are in jail. They be released immediately from custody if they are not required in any other case subject to depositing of fine amount, failing which they have to suffer the entire jail sentence awarded by the trial Court.

9. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial Court along with the record for information and necessary action.

10. Appeal is finally disposed off.

Ce