Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish 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 VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 27 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 963 of 2001
BETWEEN:-
1. JAGDISH S/O RAMDAYAL YADAV, AGED ABOUT
32 YEARS, VILLAGE DHANWAHA POLICE
STATION TIKAMGARH M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SAJJAN SINGH S/O BHABUT SINGH, AGED ABOUT
25 YEARS, VILLAGE DHANWAHA POLICE STATION
TIKAMGARH M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. AMAN DHIMAR S/O DIVIYA DHIMAR, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, VILLAGE DHANWAHA POLICE
STATION TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(NONE )
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATION
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI NARENDRA LODHI - PANEL LAWYER )
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
T h e present Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellants against the
impugned judgement of conviction and order dated 29/05/2001 passed by the
Special Judge, Tikamgarh in Special Case No.64/2000, whereby the learned
trial Judge has convicted the appellants for commission of offence under
Sections 452 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
months with fine of Rs.300/- and under Section 323 of IPC and sentence to
deposit the fine of Rs.1500/-, with default stipulations.
2. The prosecution case against the present appellants in brief is that the
incident took place on 07/09/1999 at about 5:00 P.M. The complainant Gajra
Ahirwar was alone at her house and appellants No. 2 & 3 reached there and
caught hold her hand with bad intention. When the complainant raised alarm,
her sister-in-law came to her rescue. The appellants No. 2 & 3 are alleged to
have committed offence under Section 354 of IPC with the sister-in-law of the
complainant. The appellant No.1 was also present at the spot and exhorting the
other appellants. The husband and son of complainant also reached the spot to
her rescue but they were also hit with fists and blows.
3. The accused persons were charge-sheeted for commission of offence
under Sections 452, 323, 506-B, 354/34 and 294 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x)
and 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, but the trial Court has convicted the appellants only under
Sections 452 and 323 of IPC.
4. This Court has gone through the material evidence placed on record
and depositions of material witnesses. The prosecution has examined Gajrabai
(PW-1), Manoj (PW-2), Gorelal (PW-3) Khilanbai (PW-6). All these witnesses
have duly supported the prosecution case and there is nothing in the cross-
examination or in the statement of Ganpat Ahirwar (DW-1) that may demolish
the prosecution case. The injuries on the body of injured Munnu Ahirwar,
Khilanbai, Gorelal and Gajrabai have been duly proved by deposition of
witnesses as well as Medical Report (Ex.P/7). Dr. K.R Sahay (PW-5) has been
duly proved the medical report. Though there are minor contradictions in the
statements of eye witnesses but it cannot be ignored that the evidence has been
recorded after one year six months of the incident and there cannot be tap
recorded version of the incident from the mouth of witnesses when deposition
is being taken after long gap of time.
5. Accordingly, the findings of the trial Court in the matter of conviction
of appellants under Section 452 and 323 of IPC are found to be impeccable and
do not deserve to be interfered with by this Court in appellate jurisdiction.
6. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances that deserve to be
taken in consideration so far as the sentence part is concerned. The incident
took place in the year 1999 and appellants have faced trial and this appeal is
pending since 2001, the 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.
7. Consequently, the sentence under Section 323 of IPC is reduce to the
fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default, to undergo 7 days R.I.. The sentence
under Section 452 of IPC is reduce to seven days rigorous imprisonment. The
appellants are directed to surrender before the trial Court forthwith.
8. Let record of the trial court be sent along with copy of this order for
information and necessary action.
9. Bail bonds of the appellants be discharged.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
manju
