Partly allowed

Amar Lal Kesri v. the State of M.P.

Chhattisgarh HC6 Aug 2010CRA/1174/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed the appeal in part, maintaining the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone due to the appellant's age and delay. The fine was enhanced from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 6,000.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period undergone; fine enhanced to Rs. 6,000 with failure liability of one year simple imprisonment.

Amar Lal Kesri Vs the State of M.P. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

'-^.

CF0000058342

l'Cnasi!

IN IEE HIGH GOUE3 OF WU3EX-A E&ADESH AT JABALPTE

¶5

GBIHINAL APESAI. HO.LLZl)-/199?

¶6

Appellant s Aaar lal Bssgri aged 46 years,

¶7

son of Sundarl'al ^saTi

¶8

resident of village Kbtami,

¶9

P.S. Pendra, Di.s'brl.ct, BilaS'pur(MP)

¶10

-Vers as-

¶11

Bespondent ; Stafe of Madhya Pradesh

¶12

-\ <A._.

¶13

APPBAL mDSaSBG'EIOB 374 OF THE CODE OF CRIHISAL

¶14

¶15

¶16

[Hon. Mr. Justice ritinker Diwaker) ^

iT Amar Lsi Kesarl

:RSUS

State of Madhva Prai

Shri Prakash iVlishra counsel forthe appeiiant. Shri Vlvek Sharma PL for responcient/State.

CRiMIN

CRIMINAL PROCESURE.

JUDGM

^^ff n®-^n^^x ^U^.y€?aAV a%*^

¶25

The present appeai arises out of the judgment and ord'er datea 11.03.1995 passed by Additiona! Sessions Judge, Biiaspur in Sesslons Triai No. 127/1995 convictlng the accused/appeiiant under Section 436 of !PC and sentencing hlm to undergo rigorous imprisonment for rlve years and pay fsne of Rs. 1000; in defauit of payment of fine to further unaergo simpie impnsonment for one montn.

¶26

Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of v/rltten report (Ex.P6) dsted 19.02.1995, FIR (Ex.P5) was reaisteres on 22.02.1995 aiieging in it that on 18.02.1995 at about 11 p.m. the hutment of the compiajriant Dhanuk Sav (PW-5) was .set on fire bv the accused/appeliant as a resuSt of which he has sufr'ered a loss of Rs- 3,QOO/-.

¶27

•3. So as to hoid the sccused/'appellant guilty; prosecutio" hss examined 06 w/itnesses in support of its case. Statement cf the accused/appeSSant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levetied against him and pleaded his innocence and false impiication in the case. This apart, one Bhota Singh (DW-1) has aiso been examined by the defence in support of sts case.

¶28

After hearing the parties the Court below has convicted and sentenced the accused/appeiiant for the offence as mentioned above. Hence the present appea!.

¶29

¶30

.^'^•:.

¶31

Heard counse! for the parties and perused the materiai avgiiaDie on record induding the judgment impugned.

¶32

"N-

¶33

Counsel for the appeiisnt submlts that he Is not presslng this appea! ss far as it reiates to conviction part of the judgment impug^ed and v/ouid confEne his argument to the senfence part th.ereof oniy. According to him, now the appeilant Is aged sbout 60 years, that :he sncicient is said to have taken place in the year 1995, that the appeliant has asready remained sn jai! for 9 months and 8 days, no useful purpose wouid be served in again sending him to jai! and it wouid be in the interest of justlce !f the sentence impossd on him Is recuced to the period already undergone by him. To this, counsei for the State has no serious objecttcn.

¶34

Sn view of above, the sppeai is partiy aHowed. Conviction psrt of the impugned judgment js maintained. AppeSiant is reported to have rerTiained in jajl for 9 months and 10 days; now his is aged about 60 years the incident took place about 15 years back end therefo'e In the pecui'ar 'K facts and cireumstances of the case, sentence imposec! • cn him reduced to the period already urieiergone by hiFn. Hcwever, in iieu thereof, the fine or Rs. 1000 smposed by the Court beiow is enhsnced to Rs. 6,000. This addltional amount of Rs. 5,000 shali be deposited by the accused/appeliant in the Court beicw wlthin a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this oroer. Failure in deposit of fine amount wlthin the aforesaid period shail mske tne appelianf ilable for one year simpie imprisonment. ifthe compiainant Dhanuk Say (PW-5) is surviving, the additiORaS amount of Rs. 5,OOQ be aiven to hlm othenfi'ise the same would remain with the State.

¶35

Sdlpritinker Diwaker judge

¶36

(%<A—

Amar Lal Kesri v. the State of M.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Lal Kesri v. the State of M.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ballu Rawat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nikita Swarnkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Avej Memon Vs Manoj Singh and Ors.

Ananta Charya Vs Venkatesh Garodiya

Yashwant Sahu Vs J.R. Dhruv Jittu Ram Dhruv

Om Prakash Vs State of Chhattisgarh