Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bannanath & Ors. vs The 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. 573 of 2004
BETWEEN:-
1. BANNANATH S/O SAMANDAR NATH, AGED 40
YEARS, OCCUPATION LABOUR, BHAGWANPURA,
P.S. BHANPURA DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. RAJUNATH S/O SAMANDARNATH, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, BHAGWANPURA, P.S. BHANPURA
DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. LALUNATH S/O HIRANATH, AGED ABOUT 35
Y E A R S , BHAGWANPURA, P.S. BHANPURA,
DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MANGUNATH S/O HINDUNATH, AGED ABOUT 30
Y E A R S , BHAGWANPURA, P.S. BHANPURA,
DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI AK.SARASWAT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATION
BHANPURA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
( SHRI VIRAJ GODHA, P.L., FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.05.2004, passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanpura, District Mandsaur in Sessions Trial
No.151/2002, whereby the appellant no.1-Rajunath has been convicted for
offence under Sections 324 and 323 of IPC and remaining appellants have been
convicted for offence under Sections 324/34 and 323/34 of IPC each and
sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I.(each) on each count with fine of Rs.500/-
(each) on each count with default stipulations.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants at the outset submits that he is not
challenging this appeal on merit and confines his argument on the point of
sentence only. He further submits that incident relates to the year 2002 and there
are no criminal antecedents against the appellants. The incident had taken place
on account of some incident during earlier part of the day. Injuries caused to the
injured person are simple in nature. Appellants are facing trial since last almost
21 years. Hence, in view of above, sentence of imprisonment imposed by the
trial Court be set aside by increasing the fine amount.
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that it is correct that no serious
injuries/fatal injuries have been caused to the injured persons. As per the
doctor's testimony injuries are simple in nature. Hence, in view of above fine
amount may be enhanced.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the case.
5. So far as conviction of the appellants is concerned, I have gone
through the depositions of prosecution witnesses and evidence on record.
Perusal of testimonies of prosecution witnesses reveal that there are no material
contradictions, omissions and discrepancies between the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses and their police statements and FIR. Perusal of testimony
of PW-1 Lalunath and FIR Ex.P-1 reveal that FIR has been lodged without any
delay and the names of the appellants therein are clearly mentioned. Thus,
testimony of PW-1 Lalunath/prosecution story is corroborated by EX.P-1.
Perusal of testimony of PW-3 Dr. Rakesh Kurele and MLC Ex.P-5 to Ex.P-19
reveal that testimony of injured witnesses also stands corroborated from
medical testimony with respect to the injuries caused. Further, there is nothing
on record to show that on account of some previous enmity appellants have
been falsely implicated.
6. In view of the above, in this Court's considered opinion learned trial
Court has rightly convicted the appellant Rajunath under Section 324 and 323 of
IPC and remaining appellants under Section 324/34 and 323/34 of IPC.
Therefore, no interference is called for in the findings recorded by the trial
Court. Hence, the conviction of the appellants as above is affirmed.
7. So far as sentence of the appellants is concerned the incident pertains
to the year 2002 and from paras 13,14 and 15 of the impugned judgment it is
evident that on account of some dispute between the parties during earlier part
of the day, the present incident had occurred. There are no criminal antecedents
against the appellants. The injuries are simple in nature.
8. In view of the above and taking into consideration over all facts and
circumstances of the case, interest of justice would be served by setting aside
the sentence of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount. Hence, this appeal
is partly allowed by maintaining the conviction and sentence of imprisonment
imposed by the trial Court for the aforesaid offences is set aside and fine
amount is enhanced to Rs.3000/- (each appellant) i.e Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/-
for aforesaid offence and in default of payment of fine, one month and 15 days
R.I. Fine amount if already deposited, shall be adjusted against the same. If the
fine amount is not paid within three months, appellants shall surrender before
the trial Court to undergo the remaining part of the sentence of imprisonment
passed by the trial Court. After realisation of above fine amount, each injured be
paid Rs.3000/- as compensation.
9. With the aforesaid present appeal stands partly allowed to the extent
indicated above.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
V. JUDGE
RJ
