Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 425 (MP)

Firoza Bi v. State of M. P.

2013-04-01

N.K.Gupta

body2013
ORDER 1. The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 420, 468, 471, 474 of IPC vide judgment dated 1.12.2010 passed by the JMFC, Bhopal, (Smt. Surekha Mishra) in criminal case No. 6/2010 and sentenced for 1 year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- for each count of offence. In criminal appeal No. 637/2011, the learned Tenth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal vide judgment dated 29.1.2013 dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 2. The prosecution’s case in short, is that, on 31.8.1999, an FIR was lodged by one Pradeep Gurjar before the Police Station Shahjahanabad, District Bhopal that an application was received to the Deputy Commissioner, Bhopal Gas Claims Tribunal, Ward No. 8, Bhopal from the side of Tarranum @ Tarana. The application was submitted by her mother Firoza (the applicat) but, in her mark-sheet, her date of birth was modified to be 9.11.1981 instead of 9.11.1985 and therefore, it was found by the Deputy Commissioner that a forgery was done by the applicant to obtain the amount of compensation for the minor child Tarana. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. 3. The applicant abjured his guilt. She did not take any specific plea but, she has stated that she was falsely implicated in the matter. However, no defence evidence was adduced. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal, after considering the prosecution’s evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above, whereas, the appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed in toto. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The learned counsel fot the applicant has submitted that the applicant is an old person of 60 years of age, who lost her one eye due to other diseases. She is unable to continue in the jail, whereas, she remained in the custody for more than two months. She was an illiterate woman, who did not know that who made the interpolation in the mark-sheet. However, she applied for claim of her daughter and used that mark-sheet. She was the first offender, who committed the crime due to illieracy. Under such circumstance, looking to her age and illness, her sentence may be reduced to the period, which she has already undergone in the custody. 7. However, she applied for claim of her daughter and used that mark-sheet. She was the first offender, who committed the crime due to illieracy. Under such circumstance, looking to her age and illness, her sentence may be reduced to the period, which she has already undergone in the custody. 7. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that a concurrent finding was given by both the Courts below, relating to the conviction, dependent upon the factual position. There is no basis by which any interference can be done in the concurrent findings of conviction. However, looking to the situation of the applicant that she was an illiterate woman, she is an old person of 60 years of age, she has lost her one eye and she remained in the custody for more than two months, therefore, looking to her overt-act and other situation, where she is the first offender, it would be proper to reduce her sentence to the period, which she has already undergone in the custody. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby partly allowed. The conviction directed against the applicant for the offence punishable under sections 420, 468, 471 and 474 of IPC is hereby maintained but, the sentence is reduced to the period, which she has already undergone in the custody. There is no change in the fine amount. 9. The applicant is in custody and therefore, office is directed to arrange for issuance of a supersession warrant, so that the applicant may be released from the jail as early as possible. 10. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court as well as to the appellate Court along with their records for information and compliance.