Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 582 (MP)

Gaya Prasad Dwivedi v. State of M. P.

2011-05-10

M.A.SIDDIQUI

body2011
JUDGMENT : Heard finally with the consent of counsel for the parties. This is an appeal preferred by appellants feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 11th September,2009, delivered by 2nd Addl. Sessions Juge, Satna in Sessions Trial No. 90/08 in which appellant no.1 Gaya Prasad Dwivedi has been convicted and sentenced for 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs.500/-under Section 498-A of IPC, in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I.for six months, R.I. for 7 years under Section 307 IPC and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for one year. Appellants no.2 and 3 Ravendra Singh @ Payak and Smt. Mayabai have been convicted under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one year. Both the sentences of appellant no.1 were directed to run concurrently. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants did not challenge the finding of conviction of the appellant but confined his arguments only on the point of sentence. So there is no need to consider the facts of the case. Even otherwise from the perusal of record, in my opinion, the conviction is based on trust worthy evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as per information furnished by Central Jail, Satna vide letter dated 12.12.10 under the Right to Information Act, each appellant Gaya Prasad, Ravendra Patel and Smt. Maya have already suffered the jail sentence of about two years and three months, and they are still in custody, so they have already undergone near about three years actual jail sentence. Counsel submits that appellant no.3 is a lady and appellant no.1 is 29 years of age whereas appellant no.2 is 30 years old, they have substantially suffered the jail sentence. Counsel submits that appellants may be convicted and sentenced for the period already undergone by them. 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State though opposes the prayer, but he also submits that appellants have already suffered the jail sentence of near about three years. 5. Keeping in view the submissions made by the parties, in my opinion, the interest of justice would be served if the appellants are convicted and sentenced for the period already undergone by them by giving them benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. 5. Keeping in view the submissions made by the parties, in my opinion, the interest of justice would be served if the appellants are convicted and sentenced for the period already undergone by them by giving them benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of conviction passed by the trial Court is hereby maintained. However, the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants. However, it is made clear that no interference is made in the sentence of fine and if the fine is not deposited, then the appellants have to suffer the jail sentences as inflicted by the trial Court. In case the fine amount is deposited, the appellants who are in jail shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence.