(1) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.955 of 1996 Bhuvan Singh and 3 others Vs. State of M.P. For appellants : Shri Nilesh Dave, Advocate. For respondent : Shri Dipak Rawal, Dy. GA JUDGMENT (ORAL) (Passed on 02.12. 2011.) U.C. MAHESHWARI J. This appeal is preferred by the appellants/accused under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.10.96 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge West Nimar, district Mandleshwar in S.T.No.95/95 convicting each of them for the offence under section 363 of the IPC with a direction to undergo for 1 year RI while, the appellant No.3 Toofan Singh, has been additional convicted under section 323 of the IPC for RI six months with a direction to run such sentences concurrently. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on dated 8.5.94, the complainant Amar Singh lodged the report at police station Karhi, district Khargone contending that he being agriculturist and resident of village Nagjhiri, had started talks for engagement of his daughter Savitiri Bai with appellant No.4 Kailash. Pursuant to that, some clothes were given to her daughter by the mother of said Kailash. At the time of such ceremony he categorically told to the family of Kailash that he will not carry out the marriage right now. Due to such denial the appellants accompanied with absconded accused Meharban along with other 4-5 persons came at his residence at about 2.30 in the noon, the absconded (2) appellant Suresh gave a blow of sword on his son Roop Singh, however, he saved himself. When his other son Prem Singh came to rescue then a blow of sword was given to him by appellant No.3 Toofan Singh. Consequently, he sustained the injury on his right palm. The absconded appellant Suresh Singh asked him why he does not want to solemnized marriage of his daughter with Kailash and in continuation of it, the appellants accompanied with the absconded accused, without his consent had forcefully taken away Savitri Bai from his custody with intention to make her the wife of said Kailash. The incident was witnessed by Roop Singh, Jairam and others. On the aforesaid FIR, the offence of section 363,366,452 and 323 read with section 34 of the IPC was registered. After holding the investigation, on completion of the same, the appellants were charge sheeted. It is noted that inspite making the efforts, the co-accused Suresh Singh and Manohar alias Meharban Singh could not be traced-out, on which, the charge- sheet was filed showing them to be the absconded persons. 3. After committing the case to the Sessions Court, on evaluation of the charge sheet, initially the charge of section 363,366 and 452 of the IPC was framed against all the appellants while an additional charge of section 376 of the IPC was also framed against appellant No.4 Kailash. In pendency of the trial vide order dated 27.11.95, an additional charge of section 324 of the IPC was framed against appellant No.3 Toofan Singh. The appellants abjured the guilt, on which, the trial was held. On appreciation of the evidence, while acquitting the appellants under section 366,452 and 376 of the IPC, they were convicted under section 363 of the IPC with the sentenced as stated above. Besides this, appellant No.3 Toofan Singh was additional convicted under section 323 of the IPC with the sentenced mentioned above. Being aggrieved by such conviction and sentence, the appellants have come to this court with this appeal. 4. Shri Nilesh Dave, learned appearing counsel of the appellants, after taking (3) me through the record of the trial court including the deposition of the examined prosecution witnesses and the exhibited papers of the charge sheet so also the impugned judgment, without assailing any findings of the impugned judgment holding the aforesaid conviction against the appellants, has made his limited submission for reducing the awarded jail sentence upto the period for which they have already undergone. In continuation, he said that the appellants being first offender did not have any criminal antecedent either in their past or during pendency of this case and besides this, the appellants No.1 to 3 have already suffered near about 15 days while appellant No.4 has suffered 28 days in judicial custody in pendency of the trial and, therefore, by adopting the lenient view, their jail sentences be reduced upto the aforesaid period by imposing some fine under the discretion of the Court and prayed for allowing this appeal accordingly. 5. On the other hand, responding the aforesaid arguments, Shri Rawal, GA by justifying the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant said that the findings of the trial court being based on appreciation of the evidence, does not require any interference at this stage and looking to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed by the appellants for which sufficient evidence is available, they do not deserve for adopting any lenient view either for extending acquittal or for reducing their jail sentence as prayed by the appellants counsel and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 6. Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully examined the record of the both the courts below along with the impugned judgment. I have not found any perversity, infirmity, illegality or anything contrary to the propriety of the law in appreciation of the evidence by the trial court in holding guilty to the appellants for the aforesaid offence. So, in such premises, I have not found any scope in the matter to extend the acquittal to any of the appellants. Consequently, the findings of the trial court in that regard are (4) hereby affirmed. 7. Coming to consider the prayer of the appellants counsel for reducing their jail sentences is concerned, I have found some substance in it. It is apparent fact from the record that some ceremony like engagement had already taken place in presence of the senior persons of the family between Kailash and the prosecutrix Savitri Bai but subsequently, on account of fixing the early date for solemnization of marriage, some dispute took place between the parties, on which, the prosecutrix aged near about 15 years, was taken away by the appellants to perform her marriage with appellant No.4 Kailash. Although, subsequently because of such dispute probably such marriage could not have taken place. But for the purpose of reducing the sentence, this bonafide of the parties could be taken into consideration. Besides this, it is apparent that the alleged incident took place on 8th May,1994 and thereafter, the appellant suffered the judicial custody of some days as stated above and also facing the mental agony of the case since last 16 years. So, in such premises, I do not find fit to send them in jail again for facing the remaining jail sentence. Besides this, it is apparent from the record that they do not have any criminal antecedents subsequent to registration of the impugned offence or prior to it. So, in all these circumstances, I deem fit to reduce their jail sentences upto the period for which they have already suffered the judicial custody as stated above and also described in the certificate prepared by the trial court under section 428 of the Cr.P.C but by imposing some fine. 8. Therefore, by affirming the findings of the impugned judgment, holding conviction against the appellants under section 363 of the IPC while the additional conviction against appellant No.3 Toofan Singh under section 323 IPC, this appeal is allowed in part and their awarded jail sentence under such sections are hereby reduced upto the period for which they have already undergone in the judicial custody as discussed and described above by imposing the fine of Rs.1000/- (5) against each of the appellant under section 363 of the IPC while Rs.1000/- under section 323 IPC against appellant No.3 Toofan Singh. The same is to be deposited by the appellants within forty five days from today, failing which the concerning appellants have to suffer on each count further three months RI. 9. The impugned judgment is modified till the aforesaid extent while the other findings of the same are hereby affirmed. The bail bonds of the appellants are hereby discharged. The appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. (U.C.MAHESHWARI) JUDGE MKL