Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chhuttan @ Chhotelal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 27 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 988 of 2009
BETWEEN:-
1. CHHUTTAN @ CHHOTELAL S/O PREETAMLAL
JATAV, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O ADARSH
NAGAR, ITI HOSHANGABD (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHAITRAM S/O PREETAMLAL BILLORE, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O ADARSH NAGAR ITI,
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ATUL BHANDARI S/O RAMAVTAR BHANDARI,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O ADARSH NAGAR ITI
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. NARESH BHANDARI S/O CHHOTELAL BHANDARI,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O ADARSH NAGAR ITI
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI MANISH DATT - SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI SIDDHARTH
BENDAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
HOSHANGABD DISTT. HOSHANGABD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
(BY SMT. SEEMA PANDEY - 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
28/4/2009 passed in Sessions Trial No.142/2008 decided by learned IInd
Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad whereby appellant No.1 Chhuttan @
Chhotelal has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 324
(on two counts) and 326 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for six
months and R.I. for two years with fine of Rs. 2000/- and appellant No.2
Chaitram has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 (on
two counts) of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months with
default stipulation, appellant No.3 and 4 namely Atul Bhandari and Naresh
Bhandari have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 323
(on two counts) of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for four
months each.
2. Prosecution story briefly stated is that on 28/3/2007 at about 10.00 p.m.,
Adarsh Nagar, Hoshangabad injured Mohan Jatav (PW/1) was at his residence,
when he heard cries for help of his brother Baiju (PW/4), his elder brother
Liladhar (PW/5), mother Sundar Bai (PW/12) came to intervene on the spot and
saw that appellants No.1 and 2 Chaitram and Chhuttan armed with sword and
other appellants armed with lathi were present on the spot and assaulted Baiju,
when he objected all the appellants armed with sticks in furtherance of common
object, assaulted Mahesh and Liladhar with sword. Sundar Bai and Kamla Bai
were also assaulted. The incidence was reported at P.S. Hoshangabad which
was registered in Crime No.194/2007 under Sections 147, 148,149, 323, 307
and 506 of the IPC. Injured persons were taken to the hospital for medical
examination and treatment. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was
filed before the Court of Magistrate of competent jurisdiction. After complying
with the provisions under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., the case was committed to
the Court of Session and trial commenced. After completion of the trial vide
impugned judgment, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants
as mentioned hereinabove.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to press
his contention for assailing the conviction of the appellants. However, he
submits that during trial, the appellant No.1 Chhuttan has remained in custody
from 26/4/2007 to 24/5/2007, appellant No.2 Chaitram has remained in custody
from 3/9/2007 to 11/12/2007, appellants No.3 and 4 Atul and Naresh have
remained in custody from 10/9/2007 to 12/9/2007. The incident took place on
28/3/2007 i.e. more than 16 years back. No criminal antecedents have been
found proved against the appellants, a lenient view may be taken as regards to
the sentence and the same may be reduced to the period already undergone. He
further submits that the fine amount imposed against the appellant no.1
Chhuttan for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC may be enhanced.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer stating that the
appellants constituted an unlawful assembly and armed with sticks and rods
caused injuries to 4 to 6 person. Therefore, they do not deserve for any
leniency and he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution in support of the
allegations with regard to the offence u/s. 324, 326 and 323 of the IPC is found
to be clear, cogent and consistent. The same is free from any material infirmity
a n d anomaly. The testimony of injured Mohan Jatav (PW/1), Baiju Jatav
(PW/4), Liladhar (PW/5), Sundar Bai (PW/12), Kamla Bai (PW/13) and Basanti
Bai (PW/7) stands duly supported by their MLC report prepared by Dr. R.C.
Prajapati (PW/17) and also corroborated by the FIR (Ex.P/1). Keeping in view,
the evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court
has committed any error in recording the conviction of the appellants under the
abovementioned Sections.
7. As regards the sentence, the prayer made on behalf of the appellants
appears to be reasonable. Incident belongs to the year 2007 or more than 16½
year back. No criminal antecedents are attributed to the appellants, therefore,
the period of sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone.
Fine amount imposed against appellant no.1 Chhuttan for the offence under
Section 326 of the IPC is set aside. It is directed appellant No.1 Chhuttan shall
pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to injured Liladhar (PW/5), son of
Khunnulal Jatav under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. This amount, if deposited or
recovered from appellant no.1 Chhuttan, will be given to the above injured for
compensation.
8. Let compensation be paid within a period of 60 days from the date of
communication of the judgment, failing which appellant No.1 Chhuttan will
under go his respective sentence. Since the appellants are on bail, their bail
bonds are hereby discharged.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed o n 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.
10. 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)
JUDGE
m/-
