Madhya Pradesh High Court
Guljari 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. 139 of 2006
BETWEEN:-
1. GULJARI S/O GOKUL YADAV, AGED ABOUT 35
Y E A R S , IMLI CHOWK, PS. KISHANGARH,
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. HARISHANKAR S/O GOKUL YADAV, AGED ABOUT
25 YEARS, IMLI CHOWK, PS. KISHANGARH,
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KISHORI S/O GOKUL YADAV, AGED ABOUT 28
Y E A R S , IMLI CHOWK, PS. KISHANGARH,
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. JAGAN S/O GOKUL YADAV, AGED ABOUT 22
Y E A R S , IMLI CHOWK, PS. KISHANGARH,
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI SUKHNANDAN PANDEY -- ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH - POLICE
STATION KISHANGARH, CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI VIJAY PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER )
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGEMENT
B y the present criminal appeal, preferred under Section 374(2) of the
Cr.P.C., the appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 7.1.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act Chhatarpur in Special Case No.102/2002
whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 325/34 of the IPC
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each and fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In
default of fine, they were directed to undergo further one month simple
imprisonment each.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Police Station
Kishangarh, District Chhatarpur registered the offence vide Crime No.16/2002
on 22.4.2002 under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506, 325/34 of IPC upon the report
of Bihari Kondar against the appellants and after investigation filed the charge
sheet under Sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and 341,
294, 323, 506, 325/34 of IPC. Learned Special Judge after recording the
evidence and after considering the injuries sustained by the injured Bihari
Kondar, convicted the appellants under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced
as stated above. However, acquitted from the other offences. Learned counsel
for the appellants submits that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt.
3. After haring learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-State and after perusal of record, it
appears that PW-2 Bihari Kondar supported the prosecution case. PW-5 Dr.
Rajendra Kumar explained the injuries and the learned Special judge after due
appreciation of evidence convicted the appellants for the offence punishable
under Section 325/34, I do not find any reasons to interfere in the judgment of
conviction. However, looking to the fact that the incident took place in the year
2002 and the appellants were young boys at the time of incident. The incident
took place all of a sudden. The prosecution has not brought any past criminal
antecedents of the appellants. The appellants are labourer. No minimum
sentence has been provided in Section 325 of IPC. I deem it proper to reduce
the jail sentence of the appellants to the period, which they have already
undergone. They remained in custody for a period from 20.5.2002 to
23.5.2002. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The jail sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine of Rs.1,000/- is
enhanced to Rs.2500/- each. The enhanced fine will be deposited by the
appellants within a period of two months.
4. The record of the trial Court be sent back along with the copy of
judgment.
5. The appellants are on bail hence their bail bonds and personal bonds
be discharged.
6. With the aforesaid, the present appeal is partly allowed.
(VINAY SARAF)
V. JUDGE
irf.
