Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surendra Kumar And Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 27 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 27 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1861 of 2001
BETWEEN:-
1. SURENDRA KUMAR AND ORS., AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, (MADHYA PRADESH) (DEAD)
2. MAHESH PRASAD S/O SUKHRAM YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 26 YEARS, BARERA, P.S. BARWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAJESH KUMAR S/O SUKHRAM YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 22 YEARS, BARERA, P.S. BARWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH) (DEAD)
4. INDU @ INDRA KUMAR S/O SURENDRA KUMAR
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, BARERA, P.S.
BARWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. ARCHANA NAGARIA - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI N.S. SOLANKI - PANEL LAWYER )
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal is filed, being aggrieved of judgment dated 31.10.2001,
passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Sessions Trial
No.297/2001 by which appellants Mahesh and Indu has been convicted for
offences punishable under Sections 325/34 of the IPC and sentence to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.250/- each with default
stipulation.
2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that complainant Rekha S/o
Ramkripal Yadav on 09.03.2001 at 11.45 p.m. was returning from Katni in the
way to his home, the appellants with other co-accused persons stopped him
and uttered filthily words and assaulted him by axe and Lathis by that, he was
grievously injured and he was medically examined, FIR was lodged and after
investigation charge-sheet was filed.
3. The trial Court framed charges under Section 325/34 of the IPC and
after recording the evidence and examination of accused and hearing both the
parties passed the impugned judgment by which appellants with other accused
persons were acquitted from the offence under Section 294 of the IPC but
convicted and sentenced as stated in para No.1.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant No.1
Surendra Kumar and appellant No.3 Rajesh Kumar have died during the
pendency of this appeal and the appeal is abated against them.
6. He argued that the role of appellants Mahesh Prasad and Indu is only
that that they have assaulted complainant injured Rekha by Lathis but no
specific blow is assigned to appellants and in medical examination, the doctor
has not found any grievous injury on the vital part of the body organs. These
appellants have not used any deadly weapon or caused grievous injury and
lastly, she has argued that she is not challenging the conviction of the appellants
only the sentence be modified.
7. Learned Panel Lawyer Shri Nagendran Singh Solanki has submitted
that there is no substance in the merits and submitted that the appeal be
dismissed.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case record.
9. As the conviction has not be challenged by the learned counsel for the
appellants, hence, the conviction of the appellants under Section 325/24 of the
IPC is maintained and confirmed.
10. Heard on the point of sentence, the case is of year 2001. 22 years
have already been elapsed from the date of incident and the appeal is pending.
During the trial, accused persons were in custody since 13.03.2001 to
17.03.2001 i.e. 4 days. No purpose would be served by sending the accused
persons again in jail.
11. In the interest of justice, the jail sentence is reduced to period already
undergone and fine amount is enhanced.
12. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the jail sentence
of appellants Mahesh and Indu under Section 325/34 of the IPC is reduced to
the period already undergone (from 13.03.2001 to 17.03.2001 i.e. 4 days) and
the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.250/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty) to
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand). The previous deposited amount of
Rs.250/- shall be adjusted and the appellants shall deposit remaining fine
amount before the trial Court within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of the certified copy of the judgment passed today, in default, each
appellant shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.
13. The appellants are on bail, their bail bond are hereby discharged
subject to payment of enhanced fine amount.
14. The order of the trial Court regarding case property is affirmed.
15. In above terms, appeal is partly allowed and disposed.
16. Let record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this
order for information and necessary action.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
vai
