Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhaiyalal Sahu 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. 601 of 2010
BETWEEN:-
BHAIYALAL SAHU S/O GAJRAJ SAHU, AGED ABOUT 28
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILL.
MAJHIGANWA CHOUKI MADWAS, PS. MAJHAULI
DISTT. SIDHI. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI KAMLESH DWIVEDI - ADVOCAE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH TH. PS. MAJHAULI
DISTT. SIDHI. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI DILIP SHRIVASTAVA - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
I.A.30025/2023 an application for change of counsel is taken up and on
due consideration the same is allowed.
Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi - Advocate is permitted to argue the matter on
behalf of appellant.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.03.2010
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi in Session Trial No.88/2009,
whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant for commission of
offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 6 months with fine of Rs.1000/-, and under Section 294 of
IPC with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 08.01.2009 at around 1:00
PM in the noon, the injured/complainant Rafiq had taken away the motor-cycle
of brother of present appellant/accused when he reached at a particular place,
the appellant is said to have stopped him and abused the complainant and
assaulted him with stick.
3. The present appellant was charge-sheeted for commission of offence
under Sections 307, 506-II and 294 of IPC but after trial, he has been
convicted only under Section 323 and 294 of IPC.
4. As per the evidence and the material adduced on behalf of the
prosecution, the trial Court found the offence to be proved for offence as
mentioned in para-1 above.
5. This Court has gone through the entire evidence adduced on behalf of
the prosecution. The prosecution has examined Rafiq who is injured witness
(PW-3), Mohammad (PW-4), medical witness of Doctor Shri I.J Gupta (PW-7)
as well as police witnesses. This Court has carefully gone through the evidence
of the material witnesses.
6. After having perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is
found that the findings recorded by the Trial Court upholding the guilt of the
accused-appellants are impeccable and the prosecution has succeeded in
proving the case against the accused-appellants. There is nothing in cross
examination of the witnesses that may demolish the prosecution case. Thus,
there is nothing in the said findings of the trial court that can be said to be
erroneous or perverse, warranting interference by this Court in Appellate
jurisdiction.
7. Thus, the conviction of the appellant as ordered by the trial court is
hereby upheld.
8. 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 2009 and accused/appellants have faced trial and this
appeal is pending since 2010, the accused/appellant has 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. Thus, this Court deems it fit to reduce the sentence of the appellant to
the period already undergone by appellant for a period of 32 days and to
enhance the fine amount further Rs.7,500/-.
9. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned
conviction is maintained. However, the appellant/accused are sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for the period of 32 days, subject to depositing the
further fine amount of Rs.7,500/- within a period of three months from today.
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 shall be taken into custody
or he would surrender himself to serve the entire jail sentence of one year as
awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.
11. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
15. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, if any, are discharged.
16. 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.
17. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed and
disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
Prar
