CFOOOOOSS236 '-v-^, . Stegie gench [Crimmaf] / IN TOE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADSSH AT JABALPJR Crlmlnal Appeal No e-7 1993 APPELLANT tw To*.L S3Lin<Nftwy Ifechku sllas Shriram Mishra,<3o'noj ^a^g^d^S'out 25 years'r reslclent of Kohka R0a<3. Supela, Poli.ee Staticn Supela» Bhllai, tahsll and dlstric- Curg. H.P., ^^3-^^y E •^^y'^.. ^ —/}^ \^, '^''^' v^-'-i.'" ^8't>.v »i^ .^ -. f^y-'? •v-»' fadhya Pradesh RESPONDENT A'PPEAL UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMNAL PRCKEE^RE RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Date: 2025.02.07 12:29:04 +0530 Ys?^%?i .:!y .>i,s:y .^ssscS--' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 315 of 1993 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Mechku alias Shriram Mishra State of Madhya Pradesh. Smt. F. Mirza counsel for appellant. Shri Vivek Sharma PL for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (22.04.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.3.1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Sessions Trial No. 302/1992 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. 2. Case ofthe prosecution in brief is that oh 12.5.1992 FIR (Ex. P-4) was lodged by Ganpat Ram (PW-4) to the effect that on 11.5.1992 when he was sitting at home along with his wife, the present appellant along with other accused persons entered therein and demanded Rs. 2,000 by putting the knife on his neck. It is alleged that the complainant then opened the box and gave one HMT wrist watch and one silver anklet to the accused/appellant. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 05 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under section 313 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charge levelled against them and pteaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted co- accused Gyan Singh of the charge levelled against him but convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above. i«t 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that she is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine her argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to her, as the appellant is aged about 42 years and has already remained in jail for ten months, that there is no past criminal record against him and that he is a reputed businessman of the area, no useful purpose would be served in sending him to jail and it would be in the interest of justice if the jail sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that though the sentence offine for such an offence is mandatory, the Court should have imposed the same. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the appellant has already remained in jail for about ten months, that by now the appellant is aged about 42year and that there is no past criminal record against him, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. Jail sentence imposed on the accused/appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, appellant shall have to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 which would be deposited in the trial Court within a period of three months from today. Failure to do so shall lead to restoration of the sentence imposed by the trial Court. 9. Appeal thus partly succeeds. pritinker Diwaker Judge ("fJ,,.