Devi Dayal Nai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 22324 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Devi Dayal Nai 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. 1303 of 2009

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    DEVI DAYAL NAI S/O CHITRASEN NAI, AGED
                                 ABOUT 50 YEARS, MISIRGAWAN PS HANUMANA
                                 DISTT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    PAPPU NAI S/O CHITRSEN NAI, AGED ABOUT 25
                                 YEAR S , MISIRGAWAN, P.S. HANUMANA, DIST.
                                 REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....APPELLANTS
                           (BY SHRI HEMANT SEN - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH P.S. HANUMANA
                           DISTT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI AJAY TAMRAKAR - PANEL LAWYER)

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

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 3 7 4 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.06.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mauganj District Rewa in Sessions Trial No.199/2006, whereby the appellant No.1 convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced for 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to further undergo five months R.I.. By the the said judgment, the appellant No.2 has also

convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to further undergo R.I. for 2 months.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that on 06.06.2006, Ramashankar Tiwari lodged a report at Police Station Hanumana District Rewa against the appellants and other three persons which was registered as Crime No. 55/2006 under Section 341, 294, 506, 323, 324 and 34 of IPC. During investigation, the police has added Section 307 of IPC on the basis of query report of doctor.

3. According to the appellants, Crime No. 89/2006 was registered against the complainant under Section 324, 294 and 506 of IPC upon the report of

Devidayal, who is appellant No.1 in present case. The learned Sessions Judge decided both the cases on the same day and convicted the appellants as stated herein above as well as Churamani Tiwari in cross case for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced him for six months R.I. 4 . Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have falsely been implicated in the present case, the dispute was in respect of the land and the appellants were not aggressor. It was a case of free fight, therefore the appeal be allowed and conviction of sentence be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State submits that the injured Churamani sustained the serious injury which was dangerous to life as opined by the doctor. The appellants were aggressor. The Court has not convicted with the help of Section 34 or Section 149. The appellants have been convicted for there act only and the appeal be dismissed.

6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and after examination of the record, it appears that it was a case of free fight. The appellant No.1 Devidayal Nai caused injuries to Churamani who sustained the serious injuries.

The appellant No.2 Pappu caused injuries to Vishwanath who also sustained injuries. However, the appellant Devidayal also sustained injuries in the fight. The prosecution witnesses supported the case of the prosecution whereas the defence witnesses supported the case of the appellants. Learned trial Court after due appreciation of evidence has recorded the judgment of conviction. There is no circumstances available in the case to interfere with the judgment of conviction.

7. However, it appears that both the appellants have already been undergone more than three months and four days during trial. The incident took place in the year 2006. The appellants are villagers. The appellant No.1 himself sustained injuries in the incident, the complainant party has also been convicted under Section 324 of IPC by the same Court in cross case. Prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedent of the appellants on record. The appellant No.1 is more than 60 years old. No minimum sentence is prescribed in Section 324 of IPC.

8. In view of the above, it is expedient to reduce the jail sentence of the appellants to the period already undergone by them. However, fine amount is enhanced as Rs. 15,000/- and 7,000/- respectively. The amount of the fine already deposited by the appellant will be adjusted in the same. The enhanced amount will be deposited by the appellant within a period of two months from

today. The appellants are on bail thus, there personal bond and bail bond be discharged.

9. Accordingly, the jail sentence of the appellants are reduced and the record of the trial Court be returned along with copy of this order.

10. With the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.

(VINAY SARAF) V. JUDGE R