Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 751 (MP)

Mansing v. State of M. P.

2019-11-02

ROHIT ARYA

body2019
ORDER 1. This Criminal Revision under section 397 CrPC, has been filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.08.2015 passed in Criminal Case No. 3677/2006 (State of M.P. v. Mansingh) by which the Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore convicted the petitioner u/S 420 IPC and sentenced him to suffer one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 500/-, convicted u/S 468 IPC and sentenced him to suffer 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs. 500/- and further convicted u/S 471 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer 6 months R.I. with fine of Rs. 200-/ with default stipulation. On appeal, the sentence was affirmed vide judgment dated 22.08.2019 by 18th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 2100672/2015 . 2. The facts of the case have been detailed in the impugned judgment by the Trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, hence, this Court does not want to repeat the same overall again. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner does not wish to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner has undergone seven months and 22 days out of the total awarded sentence of one year each , the fine amount has already been deposited, there is no previous criminal conduct of the petitioner, the petitioner is old aged person of 65 years and is suffering from tuberculosis and, therefore, prays for reduction of jail sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. As before this Court, the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court against the petitioner under section 420, 468 and 471 IPC has not been challenged by the petitioner, hence, the aforesaid finding is hereby affirmed. 6. With regard to the sentence awarded is concerned, the petitioner has been sentenced by the Trial Court as referred hereinabove. The petitioner has remained in the custody for about seven months and 22 days [ i.e. from 30.7.2006 to 6.12.2006 and thereafter 28.11.2011 to 26.12.2011 and from 27.04.2012 to 14.5.2012 and from the date of judgment i.e. 22.8.2019 till date]. With regard to the sentence awarded is concerned, the petitioner has been sentenced by the Trial Court as referred hereinabove. The petitioner has remained in the custody for about seven months and 22 days [ i.e. from 30.7.2006 to 6.12.2006 and thereafter 28.11.2011 to 26.12.2011 and from 27.04.2012 to 14.5.2012 and from the date of judgment i.e. 22.8.2019 till date]. The alleged incident took place on 6.7.2006 i.e., about 13 years back. The age of the appellant mentioned in the impugned judgment is 65 years. As such, the ends of justice shall be sub-served, if the jail sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him with fine as imposed by the appellate Court. 7. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed in part. The conviction of the petitioner passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court under sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC is hereby maintained. The petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in jail i.e., about seven months and twenty two days with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo three month rigorous imprisonment. 8. With the aforesaid, the revision petition is disposed of finally. 9. The petitioner is reported to be in jail, therefore, he be set at liberty if not required in any other case. 10. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for necessary compliance. 11. Revision petition stands allowed in part and disposed of.