Wahid Khan vs The State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 22412 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Wahid Khan vs The State Of M.P. on 26 December, 2023

                                                              1
                            IN    THE         HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
                                               ON THE 26 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                              CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1279 of 2005

                           BETWEEN:-
                           WAHID KHAN S/O BALDAR KHAN, AGED ABOUT 26
                           YEARS, R/O VILLAGE SEONI, P.S. SULTANPUR,
                           DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI SANJAY KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER, POLICE STATION-SULTANPUR, DISTRICT
                           RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI G.S. THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

B y the present criminal appeal, preferred under Section 374(2) of the

Cr.P.C., the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.6.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raisen in S.T. No.97/2004 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 323 and 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. for Section 324 of IPC and fine of Rs.500/- for each offence. In default to further undergo one month simple imprisonment for each offence.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that upon the report of

Basheer Khan, Crime No.105/2004 was registered at Police Station Sultanpur,

District Raisen for the offence under Sections 307, 323, 294, 34 of IPC. The injuries allegedly sustained by the injured Basheer Khan were simple in nature and the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted the co-accused Raoof and Anwar. However, convicted the appellant Waheed Khan for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC and sentenced as stated above. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, Waheed Khan remained in custody from 20.5.2004 to 8.6.2004 during trial.

3 . After hearing learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State and after perusal of record and

statements, it appears that PW-1 Basheer and PW-2 Gulsar Begum supported the prosecution case and both were injured. However, PW-3 Fareed and PW-4 Shareef turned hostile. PW-6 Dr. K.S. Shah explained the injuries sustained by Basheer and it appears that learned Sessions Court has passed the judgment of conviction, after due appreciation of evidence and it does not require any interference. However, looking to the fact that incident took place in the year 2004 and the appellant remained in custody from 20.5.2004 to 8.6.2004. The incident took place all of a sudden and the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellant on record and at the time of incident the appellant was of 26 years old. I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellant to the period, which he has already undergone. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine of Rs.500/- is enhanced to Rs.2500/- for each offence. The enhanced fine will be deposited by the appellant within a period of two months from today.

4. The record of the trial Court be sent back along with the copy of judgment.

5. The appellant is on bail hence his bail bonds and personal bonds be discharged.

6. With the aforesaid, the present appeal is partly allowed.

(VINAY SARAF) V. JUDGE irf.