Tarachand vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8825 MP

     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH: INDORE
        S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar (Verma)

                   CRIMINAL APPEAL No.8013/2018

                             Tarachand & Ors.

                                     Vs.

                                State of M.P.

For appellants:     Shri M.S. Chouhan, Advocate for appellants.
For respondent:     Shri G. Yadav, Public Prosecutor for State.
_____________________________________________________________

                              JUDGMENT

(Deliver on this 14/12/2021)

This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(3) of

Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order of conviction

dated 27.9.2018, passed by the learned 2 nd ASJ Sardarpur, district Dhar in

S.T.No.290/2012, whereby the appellants have been convicted under

Sections 148, 324/149, 323/149 (5 counts) of IPC, sentenced to undergo 1

year RI each and under Section 326/149 of IPC (2 counts), sentenced to

undergo 4 years RI with fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine 3

months additional RI to each of the appellants.

2. As per prosecution story, it was alleged that the complainant Rajaram

on 15.2.2012, has lodged a complaint at police station Azmera, against the

appellants stating that his servant Nar Singh was stopped from switching on

the electric pump for drawing the water from pond and the appellants have

broken the wire and starter. It is also alleged that the appellants abused the

other villagers and also caused injuries. After investigation charge sheet was

filed. The learned court below after examining the witnesses of the

prosecution and after perusal of the record, convicted the appellants as mentioned hereinabove.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellants are innocent

and they have not committed the alleged offence. They have been falsely

implicated in the alleged offence. It is submitted that the conviction is

without considering serious anomalies, contradictions and omissions present

in the testimony of various witnesses. It is also submitted that a cross case

was also registered against the complainant. Learned counsel for the

appellants submit that he does not wish to press this appeal on merit.

4. It is also submitted that the parties have entered into compromise. The

compromise report has also been filed to this effect. The parties have also

filed I.A.No.3569 of 2021, an application under Section 320 r/w. Section

482 of Cr.P.C, for compounding the offence, which is duly verified by the

Office.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that after due appreciation of the

evidence learned Court below has found the applicant guilty of the offence

and no interference is called for in the findings recorded by the Court below.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Now the question arises that as to how a balance should be struck and

maintained in regard to the sentence.

8. The parties have also filed I.A.No.3569 of 2021, an application under

Section 320 r/w. Section 482 of Cr.P.C, for compounding the offence, which

is duly verified by the Registrar. Hence, the appellants are acquitted from

the offence punishable under Section 323/149 of IPC.

9. More than 11 years have been elapsed from the date of incident . It is

pertinent to mention here that appellants have already suffered the jail sentence for commission of offence punishable under Sections 148, 324/149

and 326/149 of IPC.

10. Since the learned counsel for the appellants has not pressed for

conviction of the applicant recorded by the Court below under Section

Sections 148, 324/149, and 326/149 of IPC same is hereby affirmed.

However, the incident took place in the year 2012, in my opinion, no useful

purpose is going to be served by again sending the appellants to the jail. The

appellants have suffered some part of their jail sentence in these

circumstances, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice, if the jail

sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone. Hence

the conviction is maintained and the jail sentence of the appellants is

reduced to the period already undergone. However, fine awarded by the

Court below is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.2000/- (Rs.Two Thousand

only), which shall be deposited by each of the appellant in the concerned

trial court within a period of 3 months from the date of this judgment.

Failing which the appellants shall undergo the sentence awarded under the

default of payment of fine. The enhanced fine amount shall be payable to

the injured.

11. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial Court for its

compliance.

12. With the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed in part.

                                          (Rajendra Kumar (Verma)
                                                   Judge
           Digitally signed by SHAILESH
           MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
SS/-       Date: 2021.12.15 13:56:39
           +05'30'