Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 20404 MP
Judgement Date : 4 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
ON THE 4 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 442 of 2000
BETWEEN:-
RADHESHYAM S/O KOMAL KACHHI, AGED ABOUT 18
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KANMESHRA, P.S. SOHAGPUR,
DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (M.P.)
.....APPELLANT
(NONE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
SOHAGPUR, DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR PANDEY - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order
of sentence dated 02/02/2000, rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad (M.P.) in S.T. No.211/98 convicting appellant Radheshyam for the offence punishable u/S. 324 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, and in default of the payment of fine to further undergo 3 months R.I.
2. The incident herein took place at 10. a.m. on 06.01.1998 when complainant Sunder Lal Kachhi was going from his home to his agricultural field
carrying manure. On the way, the complainant met appellant/accused. The appellant/accused obstructed the way of complainant, abused him and inflicted injury on his head with an axe. The complainant fell down under the bullock cart and sustained further injury when the said cart rolled over his body. Ratiya Choudhary witnessed the incident. The complainant's son Harishankar and his son-in-law Hari Singh took the complainant in bullock cart to Police Station where he lodged the FIR. As many as 11 prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-
11) were examined including Dr. N. Hasan (PW-9) who deposed that there was
a fracture of 7th, 8th and 9th rib on the right side of the chest. Out of aforesaid PWs, wife Ajuddhi Bai (PW-3) and son Harishankar (PW-4) of the injured
were declared partly hostile. Ratiram (PW-6) was also declared hostile while Badami (PW-7) was further declared partly hostile.
3. After having gone through the facts, circumstances and evidence collected, this Court sees no reason to disturb the conviction. More so, nothing has been pointed out to compel this Court to interfere with the impugned conviction.
4. After having gone through the record and having perused the evidence collected by the prosecution and the charge sheet which was put to test by the deposition of various PWs, this Court is of the considered view that the offence punishable u/S. 324 of IPC alleged against the appellant appears to be made out and, therefore, this Court declines interference on the conviction part of the impugned judgment.
5. Pertinently, the appellant has already undergone 53 days of custody period.
5.1 The offence punishable u/S. 324 of IPC for which the appellant was found guilty, prescribes for a maximums sentence of three years with no
minimum sentence prescribed.
5. Considering the overall circumstances and the fact that appellant was aged about 18 years at the time of incident and since then more than 25 years have elapsed and to give quietus to the dispute between the rival parties, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this appeal to the extent of though affirming the conviction but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.
6. Resultantly, the appeal is hereby allowed in part. The conviction of appellant u/S.324 of IPC is hereby affirmed but the sentence is modified as indicated herein above. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged.
(SHEEL NAGU) JUDGE DV
DINESH VERMA 2023.12.07 17:32:07 +05'30'
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!