Bhajan Singh vs The State Of M.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 7760 MP

                                                                       1                             CRA-40-1998
                                            The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                      CRA No. 40 of 1998
                                                           (BHAJAN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF M.P.)


                                    Jabalpur, Dated : 24-11-2021
                                          Shri G.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                          Shri Prakash Gupta, learned P.L. for respondent-State.

Appeal is finally heard.

This appeal is under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 11.12.1997 passed by First Additional Sessions

Judge, Sehore Camp Ashta in S.T.No.48/1997 whereby the trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 333 and 341 of Indian Penal Code, under Section 333 he has been awarded a sentence of five years RI with fine of Rs.5,000/-, failing which one month further RI and under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code only fine of Rs.250/- was imposed, failing which one month further RI, although from the judgment it reflects that fine amount has been deposited by the appellant.

S hri G.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has undergone four months and eighteen days against the sentence

awarded by the trial Court. He further submits that though the trial Court has awarded the sentence against the present appellant but not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution. According to Shri Baghel some of the witnesses produced by the prosecution have not supported the case of the prosecution and narrated the story contrary to the story projected by the prosecution. He urged that some of the material witness like a driver of the vehicle i.e. P.W.2 namely Hemraj has not supported the case of the prosecution. He further submits that if the trial Court had consider the evidence of witnesses in appropriate manner, the out come of the same would have been different but not as the same has been held by the Court below. He submits that there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution indicating that it is the present appellant who has assaulted the Signature Not Verified SAN complainant and because of his assault the complainant sustained injuries. He Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 2021.11.25 13:22:03 IST 2 CRA-40-1998 further submits that in view of statement of this witnesses it does not reveal that the present appellant has knowingly that the complainant was performing the public duty assaulted him and created hurdle in the same. He submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings given by the trial Court are not sustainable because they are not based upon proper

appreciation of evidence adduced during the course of trial.

Shri Prakash Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-State has opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and relied upon the statement of P.W.1 namely Hari Singh, who has supported the case of the prosecution and very categorically stated that it is the appellant who has caused injury to the complainant and that statement of P.W.1 was unrebutted. He further submits that the statement of P.W.1 cannot be discarded and even otherwise other witnesses have also supported the story of the prosecution, though there were some omissions and contradictions in the same but that cannot be a basis to hold the judgment is vitiated and finding given by the trial Court is perverse.

S h r i Baghel in alternatively has also submitted that the incident occurred 24 years back and appellant has already suffered sentence for four months and eighteen days and therefore, it would not be appropriate, according to him, to send the appellant jail for suffering further period of sentence. He submits that trial Court has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,000/- in favour of the complainant (injured person) and this Court considering the fact discharge the present appellant taking note of the period of undergone and can also enhance the amount of compensation.

Shri Gupta, appearing for the respondent-State, although has opposed the said submission saying that mainly because of long laps of time the conduct of the appellant cannot be ignored and he cannot be discharged only because he has suffered some period of sentence. He further submits that sufferance period is also not too long comparing the sentence awarded, and

Signature Not Verified SAN therefore, he has objected and disputed the request made by the learned

Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 2021.11.25 13:22:03 IST 3 CRA-40-1998 counsel for the appellant.

Considering the rival contention of the parties and perusal of record, I do not find any illegality in the findings given by the court below and sentence awarded to the appellant. However, considering the fact and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of in the case of Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2019 SC 3419, I find appropriate that after laps of 24 years of incident, it is not proper for this Court to send the appellant jail again. Therefore, considering the period of undergone, I am inclined to discharge the appellant/ accused from suffering the remaining period of sentence awarded by the trial Court. Although, it would be appropriate that instead of Rs.2,000/- compensation as awarded by the trial

Court to the complainant/ injured it is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- and same shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of thirty days in CCD of District Court Sehore and this amount so deposited shall be disbursed in favour of the complainant/ injured by calling him through summons in the trial Court. In case he does not survive, the said amount shall be disbursed in favour of the legal heirs of the complainant/ injured person subject to verification of his legal heirs. The fine amount already deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted from the enhanced amount of fine. In case of failure of the appellant to deposit the fine amount, he shall suffer to undergo the remaining jail sentence as awarded by the trial Court.

Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE

kkc

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 2021.11.25 13:22:03 IST