Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4th
October, 2007 rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, at Jabalpur. By
the impugned order the High Court has upheld the conviction of the appellant for
offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code as also the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years,
awarded by the Trial Court.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution
has failed to explain the delay in lodging of FIR and there are discrepancies in the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, whose testimony has been relied upon by
the Courts below. It is contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the
case, against the appellant and therefore, he deserves to be acquitted. Learned
counsel also stated that the appellant has already undergone more than one year
of sentence. It is pleaded
...2/-
:2:
that a lenient view may be taken. Learned counsel for the State on the other
hand, supported the decisions of the lower courts.
Having gone through the evidence on record, we are of the view that
there is no ground to set aside the conviction of the appellant. However, bearing
in mind the circumstances under which the incident had taken place, we are of
the view that the interest of justice would be subserved if, while sustaining the
conviction of the appellant, the sentence awarded is reduced to the period already
undergone. We order accordingly.
Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
The appellant shall be released forthwith unless he is required to be in custody in
connection with any other case.
[ D.K. JAIN ]