Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pawan Singh Gurjar vs The State Of M.P. on 11 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 11 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1666 of 2003
BETWEEN:-
PAWAN SINGH GURJAR S/O UDAY SINGH GURJAR,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O GURJAR AGRICULTURAL
FARM, PIPALNER, POLICE STATION PARWALIA SADAK,
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SANDEEP KOSHTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,
THROUGH POLICE STATION BAIRAGARH, DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JHA - PANEL LAWYER)
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.09.2003
passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal (M.P.) in Session Trial
No.10/2003 (State of M.P. vs. Uday Singh Gurjar & Another), whereby
learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant for commission of offence under
Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one year and was directed to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-. In default of payment of
fine, further RI for six months has been ordered.
2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that the present appellant
alongwith co-accused Uday Singh, on 04.12.2002 at around 05:45 pm, shared a
common intention to kill the complainant Jagdish Meena & Kamal Singh and in
pursuant thereto, present appellant is said to be armed with knife and co-
accused is said to be armed with stick.
3. The present appellant was charge-sheeted for commission of offence
under Section 307/34 of IPC as well as under Sections 25(1)(b) & 27 of the
Arms Act. Charges were framed against the appellant/accused.
Accused/appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
4. As per the evidence of Dr. J.K. Chourasiya (P.W.-11), injured Kamal
Singh was having incised wound between right thumb & fingers, left hand and
also sustained some injuries on right foot. On the body of injured Jagdish, there
were stabbed wounds on his right arm & right leg.
5. Learned trial Court, after considering the statement of Dr. J.K.
Chourasiya (P.W.-11), came to the conclusion that none of the injuries were
sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Taking into consideration
the entire facts of the case, learned trial Court did not find the prosecution case
proved in respect of commission of offence under Section 307/34 of IPC as
well as under Sections 25(1)(b) & 27 of the Arms Act, but found the
prosecution case proved in respect of commission of offence under Section
324 of IPC and convicted the appellant/accused as mentioned in the preceding
paragraph No.1.
6 . A t the very outset learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
appellant does not want to challenge his conviction for commission of aforesaid
offence as recorded by learned trial Court, but has prayed for reduction of
appellant's jail sentence to the period already undergone by him as
accused/appellant has no criminal background.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State supported the findings of
conviction and order of sentence and has prayed for not reducing the jail
sentence as imposed by the learned trial Court. Thus, he has prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
8 . I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire
record of the case as well as the evidence & the statements of witnesses on
record.
9 . Looking to the statements of prosecution witnesses viz. Raghuvar
Meena (P.W.-1), Narsingh (P.W.-2), Dr. Sudhir Singh Pal (P.W.-3), Dr.
Tanmay Choudhary (P.W.-4), Nandkishore Gaur (P.W.-5), Ubhayraj Singh
(P.W.-6), Shri Kishan (P.W.-7), Kamal Singh (P.W.-8), Hargovind (P.W.-9),
Dr. J.K. Chourasiya (P.W.-11) and other witnesses came to the conclusion that
the incident infact took place. One of the injured i.e. Kamal Singh has turned
hostile, but the other injured i.e. Jagdish has duly supported the prosecution
case. Nothing is come out in his cross-examination to the contrary.
1 0 . T h u s , having scanned the entire evidence adduced by the
prosecution, this Court finds no illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the
impugned judgment of conviction recorded by the Court below and as such
same is upheld.
11. However, taking note of the fact that appellant/accused is first
offender and considering the fact that incident took place in the year 2002 and
accused/appellant has faced trial and this appeal is pending since 2003, the
accused/appellant has been under trial or appearing before the Court as
condition to suspension of sentence since long, nothing has come on record
regarding misuse of condition of bail/suspension of sentence during the long
period since the prosecution, trial & appeal are pending, this Court deems it fit
to reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone (14
days) by him by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.15,000/-.
12. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned
conviction is maintained. However, the appellant/accused is sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for the period he has already undergone (14 days),
subject to depositing the fine amount which is enhanced by this Court from
Rs.3,000/- to Rs.15,000/- within a period of three months.
13. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Court
is not deposited within a period of three months from the release of the
appellant/accused from the jail, then the original sentence would come into
operation and appellant shall be taken into custody or he would surrender
himself to serve the entire jail sentence of one year as awarded by the learned
trial Court with default stipulations.
14. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
15. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, if any, are discharged.
16. The order of the trial Court with regard to the disposal of the
property is affirmed.
17. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court record
alongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for information
and necessary compliance.
18. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed and
disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
@shish
