Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amaru vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 12 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5440 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
AMARU S/O HEMRAJ, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR, R/O: VILLAGE LALAKHEDA,
P.S. INDUSTRIAL AREA JAORA, DISTRICT RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI RITU RAJ BHATNAGAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION INDUSTRIAL
AREA JAORA, DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI KAPIL MAHANT - PANEL LAWYER)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
With consent of counsel for both the parties, instead of hearing on
application under section 389 of Cr.P.C. (IA No.16878 of 2023), matter is
heard finally.
2. The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 of
Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 16.03.2023 passed by
the Ist ASJ, Jaora, Ratlam (M.P.) in S.T. No.04/2018, whereby the appellant has
been convicted for the offence under Section 326 (II counts) of IPC and
sentenced to 02-02 years R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000-5,000/-, with usual default
stipulation.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.12.2017, complainant Ambaram
lodged a Dehati Nalishi at P.S. Industrial Area, Jaora, by stating that partition
has taken place between their brothers about 24 years ago and all of them got
one Begha agricultural land in the partition, which was mentioned in the revenue
records. On the same day, at about 7:00 AM, when the complainant was siting
outside his house, at that time, he told his brother Hemraj that "if you want more
land, you have to apply for demarcation". Then Hemraj replied to him "why I
will do it, you should apply for demarcation", at that time, appellant Amaru,
who happens to be son of the Hemraj took a sword from his house and
attacked the complainant, due to which complainant sustained injuries over his
right hand. When Babu came for intervention, then appellant also attacked on
him by means of sword, due to which he sustained injury over his head and
both the legs. Ramubai also came there for intervention, but she was also beaten
by the appellant and she also sustained certain injuries. Hemraj pelted stone
upon the complainant party and Badrilal attacked him by means of wooden
stick. Accordingly, offence has been registered. MLC of all the injured persons
were conducted by Dr. S.l. Kharadi (PW-6) and during the x-ray examination, it
has been found that Ambaram sustained fracture on his third Metacarpal bone
and Babulal sustained fracture on his left radius bone. During the investigation,
Investigating Officer prepared spot map and recovered sword from the
possession of present appellant and other co-accused persons.
4 . After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
against the appellant and co-accused before the JMFC, Jaora District Ratlam,
who has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, but later on it is
transferred to the I ASJ, Jaora. Prosecution has examined as many as ten
witnesses before the trial Court, but defence did not examine any witness. The
appellant and co-accused abjured their guilt and took a plea that they have been
falsely implicated in the instant case. The trial Court after considering the
submissions advanced by both the parties scrutinized the entire evidence
available on record and acquitted the co-accused Badrilal, Shyamubai and
Manglibai from all the charges, but convicted and sentenced the appellant /
accused as mentioned herein above.
5. Present appellant has preferred the instant appeal on several grounds,
but during the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant did not
press this appeal on merit. He did not assail the finding part of the judgment. He
confined his argument to the quantum of the sentence. His only prayer is that
sentence/imprisonment of the appellant be reduced to the period already
undergone as during trial, the appellant remained in jail from 13/12/2017 to
17/12/2018 (78 Days) and from 16/03/2023 to till now. During trial as well as
pendency of this appeal, he has co-operated. He is facing trial for last five
years. Appellant has suffered almost 50% of the awarded jail sentence. He has
no criminal past, therefore, it is prayed that his jail sentence may be reduced to
the period already undergone by him.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the appeal and
prays for its rejection by submitting that the Court below has rightly convicted
and sentenced the appellant and the sentence in question is sufficient.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their arguments
and perused the record and evidence produced by both the parties.
8. In view of the above submissions, although the conviction has not
been challenged, but perusal of the evidence available on record also justifies
the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court.
9. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the submissions made
b y the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be just and proper. The
appellant has already suffered jail incarceration from 13/12/2017 to 17/12/2018
and 16/03/2023 to till now during the trial as well as during the pendency of the
appeal. At the time of incident, appellant was young person 28 years of age. He
is not having any criminal background. Therefore, it would be appropriate to
reduce the jail sentence awarded to him.
10. Considering the aforesaid, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence
of appellant under Section 326 (II counts) of IPC from 02-02 years RI to the
period already undergone by him i.e. almost one year. The sentence awarded to
the appellant is modified to the aforesaid extent. The fine amount of Rs.10,000/-
imposed by the trial Court is hereby affirmed.
11. Having regard to the aforesaid, this criminal appeal is partly allowed
by maintaining the conviction, but reducing the sentence to the period already
undergone by the appellant. The appellant is in jail. On depositing the fine
amount, if not deposited, the appellant be released from jail forthwith, if he is
not required in any other criminal case.
12. The order regarding disposal of the property, as pronounced by the
trial Court, is affirmed.
13. Let a copy of this judgment along with record of trial Court be sent
back to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Anushree
