Madhya Pradesh High Court
Wahid 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 VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 26 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3370 of 2013
BETWEEN:-
1. WAHID S/O CHUNNU KHAN, AGED ABOUT 38
YEARS, HOUSING BOARD COLONY MAHATAMA
GANDHI WARD AYODHYA BASTI MANDLA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHAHID S/O CHUNNU KHAN HOUSING BOARD
COLONY MAHATAMA GANDHI WARD AYODHYA
BASTI MANDLA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. JUMMAN S/O CHUNNU KHAN HOUSING BOARD
COLONY, LALIPUR MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ADITYA VYAS - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH TH:P.S. MANDLA
DISTT. MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN TIWARI - PANEL LAWEYR)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2013
passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla in Session Trial No.29/2012
whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellants for commission of
offence under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 1 month with fine of Rs.500/- each, under Section 325/34 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of
Rs.1000/- each and Section 456/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- each.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 05.12.2011 at around 8:30
PM, there was a quarrel between the complainant who is the wife of brother of
accused persons and the accused persons i.e appellants No.2 and 3 are stated
to have hit the husband of the complainant with sticks and rods. The appellant
No.1 is stated to have hit the husband of complainant with silencer. The
accused persons are also alleged to have threatened the complainant and her
family members.
3. The present appellants were charge-sheeted for commission of offence
under Sections 323/34, 325/34 and 456/34 of IPC. Charges were framed against
the appellants/accused. Accused/appellants denied the charges and claimed to
be tried.
4. As per the evidence and the material adduced on behalf of the
prosecution, the trial Court found the offence to be proved for offences as
mentioned in para-1 above.
5. This Court has gone through the entire evidence adduced on behalf of
the prosecution. The prosecution has examined Sami Khan (PW-1), Chhotu
(PW-2), Nanjobai (PW-3) and Kishore (PW-5), Sakhila Bee (PW-6) Farid Khan
(PW-8) and medical witnesses as well as police witnesses. This Court has
carefully gone through the evidence of the material witnesses and eye-witnesses.
6. After having perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is
found that the findings recorded by the Trial Court upholding the guilt of the
accused-appellants are impeccable and the prosecution has succeeded in
proving the case against the accused-appellants. There is nothing in cross
examination of the witnesses that may demolish the prosecution case. Thus,
there is nothing in the said findings of the trial court that can be said to be
erroneous or perverse, warranting interference by this Court in Appellate
jurisdiction.
7. Thus, the conviction of the appellants as ordered by the trial court is
hereby upheld.
8. All the three accused as well as the complainant are real brothers and
it is a quarrel between members of the same family. The parties had also filed
application for compromise before the trial Court but it was turned down on the
ground that some of the provisions for non-compoundable.
8. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances that deserve to be
taken in consideration so far as the sentence part is concerned. The incident
took place in the year 2011 and accused/appellants have faced trial and this
appeal is pending since 2013, the accused/appellants have been under trial or
appearing before the Court as condition to suspension of sentence since long.
Nothing has come on record regarding misuse of conditions of bail/suspension
of sentence during the long period since the prosecution, trial and appeal are
pending. Thus, this Court deems it fit to reduce the sentence of the appellants
to the period already undergone by appellant No.1 (23 days) and appellants
No.2 and 3 (19 days each) and to enhance the fine amount further Rs.5000/-
each.
9. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned
conviction is maintained. However, the appellants/accused are sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for the period of appellant No.1 (23 days) and appellants
No.2 and 3 (19 days each), subject to depositing the further fine amount of
Rs.5,000/- each within a period of three months from today.
10. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Court
is not deposited within a period of three months from today, then the original
sentence would come into operation and appellants shall be taken into custody
or they would surrender themselves to serve the entire jail sentence of one year
as awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.
11. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
15. The bail bonds of the appellants/accused, if any, are discharged.
16. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court record
along with copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for information
and necessary compliance.
17. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed and
disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
V. JUDGE
Prar
