Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jeevan Singh vs State Of M.P. on 26 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 26 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 664 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
JEEVAN SINGH S/O PRATHVI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 24
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILLAGE
KHANAKHEDI, POST JAITPUR, TEH. SIRONJ, DISTT.
VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SATYENDRA SINGH RAJPUT - ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. MUGALSARAI DISTT.
VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI I.S. ASHTHANA - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of Cr.P.C.
being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.08.2012 passed by the Special Judge
(Prevention of Atrocities) Vidisha in Special Case No.41/2010 whereby the
appellant has been convicted under Section 324 of the I.P.C and sentenced to
undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-.
2. In brief case of the prosecution case is that on 14.02.2010 complainant
Babulal lodged a report at Police Station Mugalsarai to the effect that yesterday
at 6:30 PM, he was standing in front of his house, at that juncture, appellant
came there and abused him. When he objected, appellant took out knife from
his pocket and assaulted on the complainant due to which he suffered injury on
his wrist. On the report of the complainant, Crime No.08/2010 was registered
under Section 294, 506 of IPC and Section (1)(10) SC/ST (P.A.) Act.
Appellant was arrested. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
filed in the Court. Charges were framed against accused person which he
denied and requested for trial. After trial, appellant has been convicted and
sentenced as aforesaid
3. Learned counsel for the appellants/accused submitted that he does not
wish to challenge the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence. As
regards sentence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that
appellant has already suffered 01 day jail sentence and he has been facing agony
of trial since 2010 for a period of near about 13 years. It is further submitted
that complainant suffered simple injury in the incident. Therefore, it is prayed
that sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone
while enhancing the fine amount suitably.
4. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment but he
has no objection on deciding the appeal on the point of sentence.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the
record, it is found that trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on
record and rightly convicted the appellant under Section 324 of the I.P.C.
hence, conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of the I.P.C. needs no
interference.
7 . As regards sentence, looking to the facts and circumstances of the
case and evidence on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, ends of
justice would meet if while reducing the jail sentence of the appellant to the
period already undergone by him, the fine is enhanced to Rs.3000/- under
Section 324 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of the
appellant under Section 324 of the I.P.C. jail sentence o f the appellant is
reduced to the period already undergone by him and fine amount is enhanced to
Rs.3000/- which shall be deposited by him within a period of two months from
today, failing which the appellant will have to suffer the sentence as awarded by
the trial Court. The fine amount, if any already deposited by the appellant be
adjusted against the aforesaid amount of fine. The entire amount of the fine
deposited by the appellant be paid to the complainant/injured as compensation
under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
8. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
V. JUDGE
Monika
