Madhya Pradesh High Court
Baburam Vaisya 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 VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 27 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 585 of 2001
BETWEEN:-
1. BABURAM VAISYA S/O MANIKRAM VAISHYA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE NADO P.S.
MADA DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DHIRAJRAM VAISHYA S/O AYODHYARAM
VAISHYA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
NADO P.S. MADA DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(NONE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION MADA DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI D. K. PAROHA - GOVERNMENT ADVOATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellants/accused against the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20/03/2001
passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi in Session Trial
No.10/2000 whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted appellant No.1 for
commission of offence under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced him to
deposit the surety bond of Rs.2000/- and to pay the expenses of Rs.300/- and
appellant No.2 has been convicted for the offence under Section 323/34 of IPC
and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the houses of accused persons
and complainant are adjacent to each other. There is cross case and in the cross
case, one person of family of present appellants has expired. The cross case is
under Section 302 of IPC. The case of prosecution is that the incident took
place on 01/06/1999 and the injured Ramkhilavan (PW-6) was plucking
mangoes at around 12 O'clock in the noon. At that time, 8 years' old son of
deceased brother of appellant No.2 started collecting the mangoes. The injured
Ramkhilavan who is the complainant in this case, stopped him and then the said
8 years' old son called his father (deceased for whose murder cross case under
Section 302 of IPC has been lodged). The deceased Ramadhar hit Shitla Prasad
(PW-3) and present appellants hit Ramkhilavan (PW-6) with sticks.
3. The present appellant was charge-sheeted for commission of offence
under Section 323, 324, 294 and 506-B of IPC. Charges were framed against
the appellants/accused. Accused/appellants denied the charges and claimed to
be tried.
4. As per the evidence and the material adduced on behalf of the
prosecution, the Trial Court found the offence to be proved for offences as
mentioned in para-1 above.
5. This Court has gone through the evidence of Shitla Prasad (PW-3) and
Ramkhilavan (PW-6) and other witnesses. Shitla Prasad (PW-3) and
Ramkhilavan (PW-6) both are injured persons. The independent witnesses Lale
(PW-1) and Bhola (PW-2) have turned hostile. However, in the injuries on the
body of Ramkhilavan (PW-6) have duly been proved by the medical witnesses
and Dr. B. L. Seth (PW-4) is duly examined in this regard.
6. This Court has carefully gone through the findings recorded by the
trial Court and looking to the findings recorded by the trial Court, the
conviction of present appellants under Section 323 of IPC for causing simple
hurt to Ramkhilavan (PW-6) seems to be duly established from the material
evidence available on record. The findings recorded by the trial Court appeared
to be impeccable and well reasoned which does not warrant any interference
from this Court in appellate jurisdiction.
7. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances that deserve to be
taken in consideration so far as the sentence part is concerned. The appellants
have lost one member of the family in the incident. The incident took place in
the year 1999 and accused/appellants have faced trial and this appeal is pending
since 2001, the accused/appellants have been under trial or appearing before the
Court as condition to suspension of sentence since long. Nothing has come on
record regarding misuse of conditions of bail/suspension of sentence during the
long period since the prosecution, trial and appeal are pending.
8. The appellant No.2 has already been granted the benefit of probation
by the trial Court. Thus, no interference is warranted so far appellant No.1 is
concerned. However, sentence in respect of appellant No.2 is modified in view
of the aforesaid mitigating circumstances. Thus, this Court deems it fit to
reduce the sentence of the appellant No.2 to the period already undergone i.e. 2
days by him and to enhance the fine amount Rs.7500/-
9. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed.
10. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Court
is not deposited within a period of three months from today, then the original
sentence would come into operation and appellant No.2 shall be taken into
custody or he would surrender himself to serve the entire jail sentence of six
months as awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.
11. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
12. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, if any, are discharged.
13. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court record
along with copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for information
and necessary compliance.
14. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed and
disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
manju
