Narendra Mishra And Ors. vs The State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 14537 MP

                                 1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT JABALPUR
                               BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
                      ON THE 10th OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1216 of 2001

        BETWEEN:-
1.      NARENDRA MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
        S/O DEVICHARAN MISHRA, R/O BAZAR
        MOHALLA,  BARELA,   JABALPUR (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

2.      ANIL MISHRA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O
        DEVICHARAN MISHRA, R/O BAZAR MOHALLA,
        BARELA JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.      BRAJESH S/O PREM NARAYAN MISHRA, AGED
        ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O AMBEDKAR COLONY,
        ADHARTAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....APPELLANTS
        (BY SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR NAVERIA, ADVOCATE)

        AND
        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
        PS BARELA, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                            .....RESPONDENT
        (BY SHRI S.K. YADAV, DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

      This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
                                  ORDER

This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.08.2001 by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur passed in S.T. No. 450/1998 (State of MP Vs. Narendra Mishra and other) whereby the appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 294 and 323 of

IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and one months respectively.

2. As per prosecution story, on 10.09.1997 Krishna Kumar Dubey R/o Bazar Maholla Barela lodged an FIR in police station Barela stating that he is a teacher. Today at around 3:45 pm, he was going towards his home, in front of Mankumari school, Anil Mishra met him and spitted towards him and abused him, at this he also abused him in the same filthy words. After sometime, when he was returning towards home, Anil, Narendra and their driver met him and beat him by means of kicks and fists. Narendra gave a lathi blow causing injury over his head. He was rescued by his brother Raju and Yogesh. These persons

had abused him by uttering filthy words relating to mother and sister and as such caused annoyance to him. Incident was witnessed by number of persons present there. FIR was registered at Crime No. 172/1997. In medical examination, one lacerated wound was found on the parietal region of Krishna Kumar Dubey and one contusion wound was found on the person of Yogesh. After investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3. Learned Trial Court framed charges for commission of offence under Sections 294 and 323 (two counts) of IPC. Accused abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. Learned trial Court recorded the evidence of prosecution witnesses. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, convicted the appellants for commission of offence under Sections 323 and 294 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned herein above in para No. 1.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that he does not want to challenge the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. But it is submitted that incident took place 25 years back on 10.09.1997. Appellants are first offender, therefore, sentence of three months

and one month RI as awarded by the trial Court be removed and sentence of fine may be imposed on appellants.

5. Learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State has fairly admitted that incident had taken place 25 years ago and appellants have no criminal background. They have caused only one-one simple injury to Krishan Kumar Dubey (PW-1) and Yogesh Kumar (PW-2). They have uttered obscene words causing annoyance to them. Hence, he has no objection if sentence is modified in accordance with the mandates of law.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. On a perusal of the evidence of the Dr. A.K. Sinha (PW-6), it is undisputed that he had examined Krishan Kumar Dubey on 10.09.1997 and had found one lacerated wound in the parietal part of his skull. Injury was simple in nature. Thus, he has proved MLC report Ex. P-2. Dr. A.K. Nagariya (PW-5) had examined to Yogesh Kumar S/o Premnarayan and had found a contusion on the paw of his right leg. According to Dr. Nagariya, injury found on the person of Yogesh Kumar was caused by hard and blunt object and it was simple in nature. Thus, on the basis of evidence of Dr. A.K. Sinha (PW-6) and Dr. A.K. Nagariya (PW-5), it is apparent that on the date of incident Krishan Kumar Dubey (PW-1) and his brother Yogesh Kumar (PW-2) had sustained one-one simple injury on their person.

8. From the evidence of Krishan Kumar Dubey (PW-1) and Yogesh Kumar (PW-2), it is apparent that aforesaid single-single injury found on the person of injured Krishan Kumar Dubey and Yogesh Kumar were caused to them by Anil Mishra, Narendra Mishra and Brajesh Mishra. The evidence of aforesaid injured witnesses found further corroboration from the evidence of

Santosh Kumar Dubey (PW-3). Thus, injured witnesses are consistent on the point that injuries were caused to them by the appellants. The evidence of the injured witnesses find further corroboration from the evidence of S.I. Ashok Tiwari (PW-4) scribe of the Ex. P-1 FIR. ASI M.D. Tiwari (PW-7) had prepared site map (Ex. P-4) and had arrested the accused persons. As the evidence of injured witnesses found corroboration from the medical evidence and promptly lodged FIR. I am of the view that learned trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the appellants for commission of offence under Sections 323 and 294 of IPC. Therefore, the conviction of appellants under Sections 323 and 294 of IPC as recorded by the learned ASJ is confirmed.

9. As far the quantum of sentence is concerned, it is undisputed that incident had taken place 25 years back. Only one-one single injury was caused on the body of inured persons. Therefore, having taken into consideration the lapse of a period of 25 years, it does not appear just and proper to maintain the sentence of three months and one month R.I. as awarded to the appellants by the trial Court as they are first offender having no criminal background. Therefore, submission made by learned counsel for modification of the sentence being just and proper is accepted. Jail sentence of three-three months and one-one month R.I. awarded by trial Court is removed instead thereof appellants are sentenced to fine of Rs. 1,000-1000/-for commission of offence under section 323 (two counts) of IPC and fine of Rs. 500-500/- for commission of under Section 294 of IPC.

10. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants is confirmed. Jail sentence is removed but sentence of fine is imposed as indicated herein above. Appellants are directed to deposit the fine of Rs. 4,500/- before the trial Court

within two months from today failing which they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one-one month for each default.

11. Trial Court record along with a copy of the judgment be immediately sent down to the trial Court.

(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE L.R.

Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2022.11.11 16:14:32 +05'30'