1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ; JABALPUR
Cr.R.No. 1832/2006
Sikandar Mehtar
Vs.
State of M.P.
For the Applicant : Shri Sanjeev Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Smt Nirmala Nayak, GA
ORDER
(14/10/2011)
Per : U.C.Maheshwari J.
This revision is directed on behalf of the applicant/accused under section
397/401 of the Cr.P.C, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.8.2006 passed
by the Sessions Judge, Rewa in Cr.A No.243/05 whereby affirming his
conviction under section 458 and 394 of the IPC held by the JMFC, Rewa in
Cr.C.No.283/05, he has been directed to undergo for RI 3 years with fine of
Rs.300/- separately in both the sections with a direction that in default of
depositing the fine amount he has to suffer further one month SI in both the counts
separately. The awarded jail sentence have been directed to run concurrently.
2. Without challenging the findings of the impugned judgment holding
conviction against the applicant for the offence under section 458 and 394 of the
IPC, the applicant’s counsel has made his limited submission only for reducing his
jail sentence saying that out of the awarded jail sentence he had suffered 11
months and 15 days in judicial custody during pendency of the trial before the trial
court. Subsequent to it, although, his jail sentence was suspended by the appellate
court but in compliance of such order, he did not furnish the bail bonds so till
disposal of the appeal he remained in custody and, in such premises, he suffered
2
further jail sentence near about 24 months and 13 days. Subsequent to passing the
impugned judgment dated 21.8.2006 by the appellate court till passing the order
for suspension of his jail sentence on 14.2.2007, he remained in jail custody near
about 5 months and 20 days in jail and, now since last more than one month, he is
facing the jail sentence under execution of the non-bailable warrant issued against
him on account of his non-appearance in compliance of the said order.
Accordingly, he has suffered more than 2 years and 7 months of the jail sentence
out of the awarded sentence. He also argued that the applicant did not have any
criminal past or the antecedent except the present case, therefore, he being first
offender, some lenient view be adopted for reduction of his jail sentence. With
these submissions, he prayed to allow this revision for the limited purpose to
reduce the jail sentence upto the period for which he has already undergone.
3. Responding the aforesaid argument, by justifying the impugned judgment,
conviction and sentence awarded to the applicant, learned State counsel submits
that in view of the available evidence and looking to the nature of the offence and
the manner in which it was committed by the applicant, he does not deserve either
for extending acquittal or to reduce the jail sentence and prayed for dismissal of
this revision.
4. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully
gone through the record. I have not found any perversity, infirmity or illegality or
anything against the prosperity of the law in the impugned judgment of the courts
below in appreciation of the evidence for holding guilty to the applicant under the
aforesaid section. Hence there is no scope for extending acquittal to the applicant
in the present circumstances. In such premises, his conviction in aforesaid both
the sections is hereby affirmed.
5. Coming to consider the prayer of the applicant’s counsel to reduce his jail
3
sentence, on verification from the record, the submission of the applicant’s counsel
regarding suffering the jail sentence by the applicant is found correct. In such
premises, he has to suffer more than 2 years and 7 months out of the awarded jail
sentence. Probably, some part of the sentence might have been remitted by the
State Authority in accordance with their policy and procedure. In any case, I am of
the considered view that suffering the above mentioned sentence of 2 years and 7
months, is sufficient in the available circumstances of the case and, therefore, I
deem fit to reduce his remaining jail sentence.
6. Therefore, by affirming the conviction of the applicant under the aforesaid
both the sections, his awarded jail sentence in both the counts, is hereby reduced
upto the period for which he has already undergone as stated above. Till this
extent, the impugned judgment is modified while the other findings of the same
are hereby affirmed.
7. Let the trial court as well as the jail authorities be intimated to set the
applicant at liberty if his presence is not required in any other case.
(U.C.Maheshwari)
Judge
MKL
4
