Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bheru Singh And Anr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 December, 2023
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 26 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1475 of 2010
BETWEEN:-
KUSHAL SINGH S/O BHERU SINGH, AGED ABOUT
24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O
VILLAGE KACHNARA,P.S.BHAVGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI A.K.SARASWAT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT. THROUGH
POLICE STATION BHAVGARH, DISTRICT MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( MS. MEHUL SHUKLA, LEARNED PL FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE).
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
Appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order
dated 18.11.2010 passed by 6th A.S.J (Fast Track), Mandsaur in Sessions Trial
No.01/2009 whereby they have been convicted under section 323 IPC and
sentenced to undergo RI for 1-1 year with fine of Rs.1000 - 1000/- with further
default stipulation.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant Kushal Singh submits
that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment and only
challenging the sentence part of the judgment.
3. It is urged that main accused Bheru Singh has expired during the
pendency of the appeal and only allegation against the present appellant is that
he assaulted the injured with stick on the hand. Appellant has been convicted
and sentenced u/s 323 IPC with RI for one year with fine of Rs.1000/- with
further default stipulation. It is also urged that appellant remained in custody
from 04.11.2008 to 14.11.2008. The incident was of the year 2008, hence
appellant No.2 may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that as per doctor's
report, no fatal injury has been caused and the injuries caused to complainant
are simple in nature. The main accused is Bheru Singh, who has already
expired.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.
6. I have gone through the testimony of prosecution witnesses as well as
documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. Perusal of testimony of
complainant/injured Kalabai and other prosecution witnesses reveals that there
are no material contradictions/discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution
witnesses. Perusal of testimony of Kalabai and Dehatinalishi Ex.P/4 reveals that
Dehatinalishi has been lodged on the date of incident and there is no undue
delay in lodging the FIR. Kalabai's testimony stands corroborated from
Ex.P/4's Dehatinalishi.
7. In view of above and evidence on record, in this Court's opinion,
appellant's conviction u/s 323 of IPC is proper and there is no illegality or
perversity in the findings recorded by the trial Court.
8. So far as sentence is concerned, trial Court has sentenced appellant
u/s 323 UPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/-
with further default stipulation. Admittedly, incident relates to the year 2008 as
per evidence on record, main accused/appellant No.1 Bherusingh has already
expired. The only allegation against appellant No.2 is that he has assaulted
injured Kalabai with stick on her hand and as per testimony of Dr.Pradeep
Sharma, contusion was found on the right hand of injured Kalabai. Appellant
Kushal Singh has remained in jail from 04.11.2008 till 14.11.2008.
9. In view of above, including the role of appellant in the incident, I deem
it proper to maintain the conviction passed by the trial Court, however, sentence
the appellant with the period already undergone and with fine imposed by the
trial Court with further default stipulation as imposed by the trial Court.
10. In view of above, appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated
herein above.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
V. JUDGE
hk/
