Madhya Pradesh High Court
Govind Singh Yadav 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 BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 26 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6388 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
GOVIND SINGH YADAV S/O SHRI GYANI SINGH YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILLAGE KANSA, P.S. TEJGARH,
DISTT. DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI RAM LAL SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. POLICE
STATION TEJGARH, DISTT. DAMOH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
(BY MS. SHAKTI TRIPATHI - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as "the Code") assails the judgment dated
24/7/2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.121/2017 decided by learned Sessions
Judge, Damoh whereby appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 325 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for one year
with fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation.
2. Facts of the case draped in brevity are that on 1/11/2016 at about 8:00
a.m., complainant Soni Singh alias Sone Singh (PW/15) was going to graze his
buffaloes. Nearby nursery of forest department, the appellant due to previous
animosity, dealt axe blow which caused injury on the left index finger of the
complainant. First Information Report was lodged at P.S. Tejgarh, Distt.
Damoh in Crime No.248/2016 for the offence under Sections 294, 323, 324 and
506 of the IPC. Investigation ensued and after completion of investigation,
charge sheet was filed in the Court of Magistrate of competent jurisdiction.
3. The appellant abjured the guilt for the charge under Sections 326, 294 and
506 (II) of the IPC were framed and read over to him and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined the witnesses listed in charge sheet along
with complainant Soni Singh alias Sone Singh (PW/5), Dr. Ashwini Patel
(PW/1) and Investigating Officer A.S.I., B.P. Sahu (PW/8).
5. Learned trial Court after examining the prosecution witnesses took
explanation for incriminating circumstances appearing against the appellant
under Section 313 of the Code. The appellant either denied the circumstances
or claimed ignorance, but he did not adduce any evidence in defence. During
examination, under Section 313 of the Code, he simply took a defence that he is
innocent and has been falsely implicated.
6. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record vide
impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned herein
above.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press
his contention for assailing the conviction of the appellant. However, he submits
that the appellant has been in custody for about 8 days and the appellant has no
criminal antecedent. The incident took place near about 7 years back on trivial
grounds, a lenient view may be taken as regards to the sentence and the same
may be reduced to the period already undergone.|
8. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that an appropriate order
may be passed by this Court in this regard.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution in support of the
allegations with regard to the offence u/s. 325 of the IPC is found to be clear,
cogent and consistent. The same is free from any material infirmity and
anomaly. The testimony of complainant - Soni Singh alias Sone Singh (PW/5)
stands duly supported with first information report and medical report of
complainant (Ex.P/1) and x-ray report (Ex.P/3) which is proved by Dr. Ashwini
Patel (PW/1) who also supports the prosecution case. Keeping in view, the
evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has
committed any error in recording conviction for offence u/s. 325 of the IPC or
the learned appellate Court has committed any error in affirming the conviction.
Therefore, the conviction as recorded by the learned trial Court is affirmed.
11. As regards the sentence, the prayer made on behalf of the appellant
appears to be reasonable. The dispute has occurred on a trivial issue. He has
faced the trial and appeal since last more than 7 years. No criminal antecedents
are attributed to the appellant, therefore, the period of sentence deserves to be
reduced to the period already undergone, enhancing the fine amount from
Rs.1500/- to Rs.5000/- will sub serve ends of justice. Appellant will have to
deposit the remaining enhanced amount of fine within a period of 60 days from
the date of judgment passed by this Court, before the concerned trial Court
failing which the appellant will have to undergo RI for three months.
12. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed on the point of sentence as
mentioned hereinabove. The conviction of the appellant is maintained. As
regards the sentence, the same is reduced to the period already undergone with
modification of fine as mentioned hereinabove. The appellant is already on bail.
13. The record of the learned trial Court along with the copy of the judgment
be sent back forthwith to the concerned trial Court for compliance and
necessary action.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
V. JUDGE
m/-
