Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ratiram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 26 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1994 of 2009
BETWEEN:-
1. RATIRAM S/O BHADU VANSHKAR, AGED ABOUT
50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O
VILLAGE ASATI, P.S. NIWADI, DISTRICT
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAMSWAROOP S/O RATIRAM VANSHKAR, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATIO: LABORER, R/O
VILLAGE ASATI, P.S. NIWADI, DISTRICT
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MUNNU @ GOVIND S/O RATIRAM VANSHKAR,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABORER,
R/O VILLAGE ASATI, P.S. NIWADI, DISTRICT
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY MR. PRADEEP NAVERIYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
NIWADI, DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. SHIKHA BAGHEL - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh, in S.T.
No.38/07 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 324/34 of
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/-
and in default, to further undergo 3 months' S.I.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial,
the appellants remained in custody since 06.03.2007 to 09.03.2007. Except the
appellants, all other accused persons were acquitted by the Court. He prayed
for acquittal of the appellants.
3. Per contra, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State
supported the judgment and submitted that PW/1- Jagdish duly proved the
incident and the learned sessions Court has rightly convicted the appellants
under Section 324/34 of Indian Penal Code.
4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of
record, it appears that on 05.12.2004, a report was lodged by Jagdish Ahirwar
against the appellants and others, which was registered as Crime No.278/2004 at
Police Station- Niwadi, District- Tikamgarh, under Sections 406, 324, 323, 294,
506-B/34 of Indian Penal Code and during investigation, Sections 395 and 397
of Indian Penal Code were added and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the statement of PW/1-
Jagdish, who categorically stated before the Court that the appellants caused
injuries to him and the injuries were explained by PW/5- Dr. S.N. Tiwari. PW/8-
Prabhu Singh explained the act of investigation and therefore, in view of this
Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any error in
convicting the appellants under Section 324/34 of Indian Penal Code. However,
looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year 2004, the prosecution
has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellants on record, the
dispute was in respect of the land and tractor, the injuries sustained by the
complainant were not serious in nature, no minimum sentence has been
prescribed under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, I deem it proper to reduce
the jail sentence of the appellants to the extent of the period which they have
already undergone and accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced. However, fine
is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,000/- each. The enhanced amount shall be
paid to the victim as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. The
appellants shall deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months
from today. The appellants are on bail, their personal bonds and bail bonds be
discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
5. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.
(VINAY SARAF)
V. JUDGE
Prachi
