Jugraj vs State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 22334 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jugraj 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. 95 of 2008

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.      JUGRAJ S/O RAMSUKHA BAIRWA , AGED ABOUT
                                   25 YEARS, R/O BAGHUA THANA MANPUR DISTT.
                                   SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.      BABU S/O RAMSUKHA BAIRWA, AGED ABOUT 30
                                   YEARS, R/O BAGHUA, THANA MANPUR DISTT.
                                   SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPELLANTS
                           (BY SHRI ASHOK KUMAR RATHOR - ADVOCATE AND SHRI V.K.
                           AGARWAL - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATION MANPUR,
                           DISTRICT SHEOPUR (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 appellants under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.01.2008 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Atrocities) Sheopur in Session Trial No.72/2005 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 324 or 324/34 of the I.P.C and sentenced to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- each.

2 . I n brief case of the prosecution case is that when complainant

Ramcharan went to his field to cut the crop, accused/appellants did not allow him to do so and instead themselves started cutting the crop. When the complainant objected, appellant Babu with sickle assaulted on the finger of left hand and thereafter again assaulted with sickle on his another finger. In between, appellant Jugraj abused him. On the report of the complainant, at Police Station Manpur Adam Check No.30/04 was recorded. Complainant was medically examined. After receiving the medical report, Crime No.31/2004 under Section 323, 324/34 and 506-B of IPC was registered against the appellants. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court. Charges were framed against accused persons which they denied and requested for trial. After

trial, appellants have 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 appellants for the aforesaid offence. As regards sentence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that appellants have already suffered 15 days jail sentence and they have been facing agony of trial since 2004 for a period of near about 19 years. It is further submitted that complainant suffered simple injury in the incident. Therefore, it is prayed that sentence of the appellants 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 appellants under Section 324 or 324/34 of the

I.P.C. hence, conviction of the appellants under Section 324 or 324/34 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 appellants to the period already undergone by them, the fine is enhanced to Rs.2000/- under Section 324 or 324/34 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of the appellants under Section 324 or 324/34 of the I.P.C. jail sentence o f the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them and fine amount is enhanced to Rs.2000/- each which shall be deposited by them within a period of two months from today, failing which the appellants will have to suffer the sentence as awarded by the trial Court. The fine amount, if any already deposited by the appellants be adjusted against the aforesaid amount of fine. The entire amount of the fine deposited by the appellants 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