1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 233 of 2005 Suresh and Another Vrs State of Madhya Pradesh Present:-Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Sharma ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appellants by Shri Jitendra Tyagi, Advocate. Respondent/State by Shri B. K. Sharma, Panel Lawyer. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T (Delivered on this 13th Day of December, 2011) This appeal has been preferred by appellants under Section 374 of CrPC, being aggrieved by judgment dated 01/04/2005, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shivpuri (MP) in Sessions Trial No.115/2003, whereby appellant No.1 Suresh has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 329/34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer six months RI with a fine of Rs. 500/- and he has further been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and appellant No.2 Bhura has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 329/34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer six months RI with a fine of Rs. 500/- and he has further been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to suffer six months RI with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulations. 2. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are not challenging the finding of learned trial court with respect to their conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 329/34, 324 and 325 of IPC and only prayer is made with respect to awarding the 2 sentence. It is further submitted that the appellants are first offenders and are having no criminal antecedents. The appellants remained in custody during trial for about 21 days and after passing of the impugned judgment for about 13 days, total 34 days. Hence, period of sentence awarded by learned trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone by them in custody. 3. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has formally opposed the prayer of the appellants and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 4. Since learned counsel for the appellants is not challenging the finding of conviction, therefore, discussion of evidence is not necessary. Only one point is to be decided is awarding of sentence. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and also considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2003 and this appeal is pending since 2005 and the appellants are having no previous criminal antecedents in their account, therefore, the ends of justice would meet if the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 329/34, 324 and 325 of IPC is maintained, reducing the period of sentence as already undergone by them in custody. The fine amount as awarded by learned trial Court shall remain as it is. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and stands disposed of to the extent as indicated herein above. ( Anil Sharma ) Judge mkb/-