Madhya Pradesh High Court
Achchelal Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 26 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1498 of 2010
BETWEEN:-
1. ACHCHELAL SAHU S/O SHRI CHOTAI SAHU, AGED
ABOUT 43 YEARS, VILL SONARI P.S. SOHAGI (M.P)
2. SMT. GANGA DEVI W/O ACHCELAL SAHU, AGED
ABOUT 36 YEARS, SONARI (SINGH TOLA),
P.S.SOHAGI, DIST.REWA (M.P)
3. VISHAMBHAR NATH SAHU @ SITARAM SAHU S/O
LATE HIRALAL SAHU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
JHAJHRA PENDEYA CHAUKI, NAARIBAARI,
P.S.SHANKARGARH, DIST.ALLAHABAD (U.P)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI GAYNENDRA PATEL-ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION SOHAGI REWA (M.P)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANOOP SONKAR -PANEL LAWYER FOR STATE )
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellants/accused persons against
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.07.2010
passed by VIIIth Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Court) Rewa in Session
Trial No.14/2010, whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant
no.1 to 3 for commission of offence under Section 326/34 of IPC and
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and further
directed to pay fine of Rs.200/- and under Section 323 and section 323/34 of
IPC and sentenced them to fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 22.11.2009 at around 11.00
AM the complainant Manoj Kumar went into his agricultural land and his father
Kunwar Bhadhur was also in the same land for agricultural purpose. The
appellant no.1 Achchelal Sahu was cultivating the adjacent land of uncle of
complainant. On the date of incident all the appellant no.1 to 3 were harvesting
their crops and some altercation took place between the complainant Manoj and
appellant no.1, which resulted in both the parties fighting with fists and blow
with each other. The complainant tried to flee from the spot to save himself but
he was hit by a sickle by accused persons-appellants, which resulted in grievous
injury in finger of his left hand.
3. The present appellant was charge-sheeted for commission of offence
under Section 326/34, 323/34 of IPC. Charges were framed against the
appellants/accused persons. Accused persons/appellants denied the charges
and claimed to be tried.
4. As per the evidence and the material adduced on behalf of the
prosecution, the Trial Court found the offence to be proved for offences as
mentioned in para-1 above.
5. This Court has gone through the entire evidence adduced on behalf of
the prosecution. The prosecution has examined (PW-2) Kunwar Bhadhur, (PW-
3) Manoj Singh and medical evidence of the doctors. (PW-1) Rajmani Sharma
turned hostile.
6. After having perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is
found that the findings recorded by the Trial Court upholding the guilt of the
accused-appellants are impeccable and the prosecution has succeeded in
proving the case against the accused-appellants. There is nothing in cross
examination of the witnesses that may demolish the prosecution case. Thus,
there is nothing in the said findings of the trial court that can be said to be
erroneous or perverse, warranting interference by this Court in Appellate
jurisdiction.
7. Thus, the conviction of the appellant as ordered by the trial court is
hereby upheld.
8. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances that deserve to be
taken in consideration so far as the sentence part of appellant no.2 and 3 is
concerned. As per deposition of (PW-2) Kunwar Bhadhur the actual blow to
the injured Manoj has been caused by appellant no.1 Achchelal Sahu and not by
the appellant no.2 and 3. Therefore the sentence of appellant no.1 Achchelal
Sahu is confirmed. The appellant no.2 and 3 have been convicted under section
326 of IPC only on account of section 34 of IPC. The incident took place in
the year 2009 and appellant no.2 and 3 are faced trial and this appeal is pending
since 2010, the The appellant no.2 and 3 have been under trial or appearing
before the Court as condition to suspension of sentence since long. Nothing
has come on record regarding misuse of conditions of bail/suspension of
sentence during the long period since the prosecution, trial and appeal are
pending. Thus, this Court deems it fit to reduce the sentence of the appellant
no.2 and 3 to the period already undergone by them (10 days each) and to
enhance their total fine amount to Rs.5000/-each.
9. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned conviction
is maintained. However, the appellant no.2 and 3 are sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for the period they have already undergone (10 days each),
subject to depositing the further total fine amount of Rs.5,000/-each within a
period of three months from today.
10. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Court
is not deposited within a period of three months from today, then the original
sentence would come into operation and appellant no.2 and 3 shall be taken into
custody or they would surrender themselves to serve the entire jail sentence of
one year as awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.
11. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
12. The bail bonds of the appellant no.2 and 3, if any, are discharged.
13. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court record
alongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for information
and necessary compliance.
14. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed and
disposed of
(VIVEK JAIN)
V. JUDGE
tarun
