Bhagirath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5563 MP

                                                                1
                                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                         AT JABALPUR
                                                                BEFORE
                                              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
                                                        ON THE 18th OF APRIL, 2022

                                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1288 of 2022

                                        Between:-
                                        BHAGIRATH S/O SHRI SUKTA AHIRWAR , AGED
                                        ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                                        R/O  VILLAGE     SUKWAHA    P.S. KOTWALI
                                        TIKAMGARH DISTT. TIKAMGARH M.P. (MADHYA
                                        PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....APPELLANT
                                        (BY SHRI VIKAS JYOTISHI, ADVOCATE )

                                        AND

                                   1.   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
                                        KOTWALI    DISTT. TIKAMGARH    (MADHYA
                                        PRADESH)

                                   2.   KADORE @ KADORI AHIRWAR S/O LATE HARBAL
                                        AHIRWAR , AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                        NILL R/O VILLAGE SUKWAHA, P.S. KOTWALI
                                        TIKAMGARH, TEHSIL AND DISTT. TIKAMGARH
                                        M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   3.   PHOOLCHAND S/O KADORE @ KADORI AHIRWAR
                                        , AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NILL R/O
                                        VILLAGE SUKWAHA, P.S. KOTWALI TIKAMGARH,
                                        TEHSIL AND DISTT. TIKAMGARH M.P. (MADHYA
                                        PRADESH)

                                   4.   KALLU S/O KADORE @ KADORI AHIRWAR , AGED
                                        ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NILL R/O
                                        VILLAGE SUKWAHA, P.S. KOTWALI TIKAMGARH,
                                        TEHSIL AND DISTT. TIKAMGARH M.P. (MADHYA
                                        PRADESH)

                                   5.   GANUA S/O CHATRA AHIRWAR , AGED ABOUT 38
                                        Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: NILL R/O VILLAGE
                                        SUKWAHA, P.S. KOTWALI TIKAMGARH, TEHSIL
                                        AND DISTT. TIKAMGARH M.P. (MADHYA
                                        PRADESH)

                                   6.   SONU S/O CHATRA AHIRWAR , AGED ABOUT 32
                                        Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: NILL R/O VILLAGE
                                        SUKWAHA, P.S. KOTWALI TIKAMGARH, TEHSIL
                                        AND DISTT. TIKAMGARH M.P. (MADHYA
                                        PRADESH)

                                   7.   MANGU CHADHAR S/O LATE CHINNA CHADHAR ,
                                        AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NILL R/O
Signature Not Verified
                                        VILLAGE SUKWAHA, P.S. KOTWALI TIKAMGARH,
                                        TEHSIL AND DISTT. TIKAMGARH M.P. (MADHYA
  SAN




Digitally signed by DEEPA MISHRA
                                        PRADESH)
Date: 2022.04.19 10:34:15 IST


                                   8.   KHUSHIRAM S/O LATE SHRI GOKAL YADAV ,
                                                                        2
                                                 AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NILL R/O
                                                 VILLAGE SUKWAHA, P.S. KOTWALI TIKAMGARH,
                                                 TEHSIL AND DISTT. TIKAMGARH M.P. (MADHYA
                                                 PRADESH)

                                   9.            SURESH S/O LATE SHRI GOKAL YADAV , AGED
                                                 ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NILL R/O
                                                 VILLAGE SUKWAHA, P.S. KOTWALI TIKAMGARH,
                                                 TEHSIL AND DISTT. TIKAMGARH M.P. (MADHYA
                                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                                                 (BY SHRI HIMANSHU TIWARI, PANEL LAWYER )

                                           T h is appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                                   following:
                                                                            ORDER

This appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.1.2022 whereby, appeal preferred by respondents No.2 to 9 has been dismissed. However, sentence has been modified and jail sentence has been removed and respondents have been sentenced to fine of Rs.1000/-(Rs. One Thousand) each and Till the rising of the Court for commission of offence under Section 323/34 of IPC and fine of Rs.10000/- (Ten Thousand) each for commission of offence under Section 325/34 of IPC. This appeal has been filed to restore the judgment of learned JMFC.

2. As per the proviso of Section 372 of Cr.P.C. victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.

4. Appeal filed by the victim is not on all the three grounds mentioned in the proviso of Section 372 of Cr.P.C.

5. Hence, this appeal being not maintainable under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. It is dismissed at motion stage.

(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE Signature Not Verified SAN mrs. mishra

Digitally signed by DEEPA MISHRA Date: 2022.04.19 10:34:15 IST