Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tilak Singh 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. 3436 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
1. TILAK SINGH S/O MAHRAJ SINGH YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS, VILLAGE SIRSI THANA
SUNVANI, DISTT. PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SANJU @ SANJAY S/O SUDHA PRASAD DEVEDI,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE SIRSI,
THANA SUNVANI, DISTT. PANNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. CHAGGE @ RAMPRAKASH DEWEDI S/O SHRI
DWARKA PRASAD DEWEDI, AGED ABOUT 23
YEAR S, R/O VILLAGE SIRSI, THANA SUNVANI,
DISTT. PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. HALKE @ DHUPENDRA SINGH S/O MAHRAJ
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
SIRSI, THANA SUNVANI, DISTT. PANNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. DINESH KUMAR S/O DURGA PRASAD DEVEDI,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE SIRSI,
THANA SUNVANI, DISTT. PANNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. SANTOSH KUSHWAHA S/O PURI KUSHWAHA,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE SIRSI,
THANA SUNVANI, DISTT. PANNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI NEERAJ PATHAK - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH P.S.
SUNVANI, DISTT. PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONIKA
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 12/27/2023
10:40:54 AM
2
(BY SHRI AKHILENDRA SINGH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
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
21/11/2014 passed in Sessions Trial No.109/2013 decided by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai, Distt. Panna whereby appellants have been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325/34 of IPC and have
been sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default
stipulation.
2. The prosecution story in short is that complainant Shivcharan Sen (PW/5)
was posted as Secretary in village Sirsi, Police Station Sunvani, Distt. Panna.
On 16/6/2013 at about 11.30 a.m., he was going for census survey to village
Simra. On account of asking for keys of Panchayat Bhawan, the appellants
hurled filthy abuses and assaulted them with kicks and fists. FIR (Ex.P/5) was
lodged in the concerned police station through written application (Ex.P/4)
which was registered in Crime No.16/2013 at P.S. Sunvani, Distt. Panna.
Investigation ensued and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was
filed in the Court of Magistrate of competent jurisdiction.
3. The appellants abjured the guilt for the charges under Sections 332/34,
333/34 and 353 of the IPC were framed and read over to them and claimed to
be tried.
4. It is examined the witnesses listed in charge sheet along with complainant
Shivcharan Sen (PW/5), Dr. Alok Kumar Gupta (PW/11) and Investigating
Officer S.I. Chhittulal Patel (PW/10).
5. Learned trial Court after examining the prosecution witnesses and taking
explanation for incriminating circumstances appearing against the appellants
under Section 313 of the Code by the impugned judgment convicted and
sentenced the appellants as mentioned above, which gave rise to the appeal.
The appellants have taken defence that they have not committed any offence
and they have falsely been implicated but they have not adduced any evidence
in defence.
6. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record vide
impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned herein
above.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to press
the findings of conviction recorded against the appellants but looking to the fact
that the appellants have remained in jail from 10/7/2013 to 17/7/2013 i.e. 7 days,
the incident occurred long back on 16/6/2013 and the appellants have no
criminal past, 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 in support of the allegations with regard to offence
u/s. 325 read with Section 34 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 - Shivcharan Sen (PW/5) stands duly supported with
first information report (Ex.P/5) which was recorded on the basis of written
application (Ex.P/4) given by the complainant. Medical report of complainant
(Ex. P/7) and x-ray report (Ex.P/15) which is proved by Dr. Alok Kumar Gupta
(PW/11) 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. 325/34 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 hereby
affirmed.
11. As regards the sentence, the prayer made on behalf of the appellants
appears to be reasonable. The dispute has occurred on a trivial issue. No
criminal antecedents are attributed to the appellants, therefore, the period of
sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone, enhancing the
fine amount of Rs.1000/- imposed upon each of the appellants on to Rs.5000/-
. Appellants will have to deposit the remaining enhanced amount of fine within
a period of two months before the concerned trial Court failing which they
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 appellants is maintained. As
regards the sentence, the same is reduced to the period already undergone. The
appellants are already on bail.
13. The record of the learned trial Court along with the copy of the judgment
be sent back forthwith to the learned trial Court for compliance and necessary
action.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
V. JUDGE
m/-
