Ramesh vs State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 22347 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramesh vs State Of M.P. 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. 869 of 2006

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RAMESH S/O REVAJI KHATI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
                           OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILL. GULAWA TEH. &
                           DISTT. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI J. B. MEHTA, ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. SAGOR, DISTRICT -
                           DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY MS. HARSHLATA SONI, PANEL LAWYER)

                                  Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                           following:
                                                            JUDGMENT

The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.07.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhar in Sessions Trial No.311/2002, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 01 year's rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.

02. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submits that he not challenging the conviction part of the judgment, but only challenging the

sentence part. It is also urged that initially the appellant was charged under Section 307 of the IPC but the trial Court did not find the said charge proved and instead, convicted the appellant under Section 323 of the IPC. There are no criminal antecedents of the present appellant. The appellant remained in custody for 12 days, hence, the appellant may be sentenced with the period already undergone and the fine amount may be enhanced.

03. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State submits that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 323 of the IPC, hence, no interference is called for with respect to the finding recorded by the trial Court.

04. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case.

05. So far as the conviction of the appellant under Section 323 is concerned, it is correct that the eye-witnesses, namely Prakash (P.W-1), Hariram Patidar (P.W-3) and Gajanand (P.W-4) turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. But deposition of injured Kamal (P.W-2) and his wife Anita Bai (P.W-8) reveals that there are no inter se discrepancies / contradictions in their Court testimony and the statements recorded by the police. Further, perusal of testimony of Kamal (P.W-2) and Sub Inspector - Dinesh Sharma (P.W-5) and F.I.R. (Ex-P/2) reveals that the F.I.R. has been lodged immediately after the incident and there are no contradictions and omissions in Kamal Court's testimony. Thus, Kamal's Court's statement stands corroborated with the F.I.R. (Ex-P/2). Further, perusal of deposition of Dr. Sanjay Sharma (P.W-9), who performed the MLC reveals that he has examined the injured on the date of incident itself and has prepared the medical report (Ex-P/5). The said medical report also corroborates the testimony of Kamal

(P.W-2).

06. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant under Section 323 of the IPC. Hence, the findings recorded by the trial Court with respect to the conviction cannot be interfered with.

07. So far as the sentence part is concerned, the trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 01 year's rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations. From the evidence on record, it is clear that there is only one injury on the person of the injured - Kamal which is simple in nature. The incident is of the year 2005 and the appellant is having no criminal antecedent.

08. Considering the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, it would be just and proper to sentence the appellant with the period already undergone by him by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/-. The enhanced amount shall have to be deposited within a period of three months from today, failing which the appellant shall surrender before the trial Court to undergo the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court. Fine amount, if any already deposited, shall be adjusted against above fine amount.

09. Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated above.

(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL) V. JUDGE Ravi