Suresh vs The State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 20864 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Suresh 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. 1906 of 2003

                           BETWEEN:-
                           SURESH S/O BHAIYAN BRAHMAN, AGED ABOUT 30
                           YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KASAR, P.S. SATAI, DISTRICT
                           CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANT
                           (NONE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. SATAI, DISTRICT
                           CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JHA - PANEL LAWYER)


                                 Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant against the judgment

o f conviction and sentence dated 31.10.2003, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentence to one year rigorous imprisonment.

T h e brief facts of the case are that a challan was filed against the appellant-accused under Section 324/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The trial Court has acquitted the accused-appellant under the provisions of Section

3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and has convicted the appellant only under Section 324

of IPC.

T h e prosecution story in brief is that on the date of incident i.e. 05.12.1998, the complainant was talking to someone at bus stand. At that time, the present accused-appellant hit one injured with axe. As per medical report, the injured was having one incised wound on his right shoulder.

None of the independent witnesses supported the prosecution case and one witness Ram Kishor turned hostile. The other eye-witness Bhawani Deen was not produced by the prosecution for witness. The injured Paramlal duly supported the prosecution story. After considering the medical evidence and statements of injured Paramlal, the trial Court has convicted the present

appellant-accused under Section 324 of IPC. The trial Court has duly recorded a fnding after considering the medical evidence that the injuries on the body of complainant was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, nor were grievous in nature. The injuries have been found to be simple in nature a n d accordingly, one year imprisonment has been awarded to the present appellant.

After perusing the statements of injured Paramlal as recorded before the trial Court, it is seen that the said witness has duly supported the prosecution case and the defence has not been able to demolish the case of prosecution in the cross examination.

The medical expert witness Dr. S.V. Yadav has supported the medical report and has not denied the possibility that such simple injuries can also come when a person falls on hard surface like stone, etc. Looking to the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, I do not find it possible to disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the trial Court.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is hereby confirmed.

The present appellant has been in custody for a period of 6 days during trial. Looking to the mitigating circumstances that the incident is of 1998 and the appellant has suffered investigation, trial and this appeal since last 25 years and has been appearing before the trial Court as well as before the concerning Court as per conditions of suspension of sentence, and there is nothing on record to suggest that he has misused the conditions of bail. Looking to the aforesaid mitigating circumstances, I deem it proper to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. However, looking to the circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to impose fine on the appellant.

Accordingly, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The appellant will deposit fine amount of Rs. 15,000/- within a period of 3 months from today. If the fine amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, then the original sentence as awarded by the trial Court will come in force and the appellant shall be taken into custody to serve the remaining jail sentence.

With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.

(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE ak