Yogesh@Bade vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 22478 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Yogesh@Bade vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 December, 2023

Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal

Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal

                                                             1
                            IN     THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
                                               ON THE 27 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                               CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 257 of 2016

                           BETWEEN:-
                           YOGESH@BADE S/O RAJESH JADON, AGED ABOUT 28
                           YEARS, RAJU MATAN WALE KI GALI, NEMI NAGAR,
                           THANA MADHAV NAGAR, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH CHOUHAN, ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER THRU. P.S. MADHAV NAGAR, UJJAIN
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI SACHIN JAISWAL, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                  Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                           following:
                                                            JUDGMENT

The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.01.2016 passed by the Special Judge [Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act] in Sessions Trial No.238/2012, whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal and sentenced to undergo 01 year's rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulations.

02. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not challenging

the impugned judgment on merits, but confining his arguments only with respect to the sentence awarded by the trial Court. It is urged that the trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 324 r/w 34 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo 01 year's R.I. along with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. The appellant has remained in custody from 06.03.2013 to 07.06.2013 and from 30.12.2015 to 02.03.2016, i.e. more than six months out of the total imprisonment of one year. The only allegations against the present appellant is that he caused the injury by means of pipe. However, no injury has been found which is said to have been caused by pipe. Referring to paragraph - 20 of the impugned judgment, it is also urged that the complainant and appellant filed a

compromise petition which was rejected on the ground that said offence is non- compoundable. Hence, appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

03. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent / State submits that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and it cannot be said that sentence imposed is disproportionate. Hence, no interference is called for in the findings recorded by the trial Court.

04. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case.

05. Perusal of impugned judgment passed by the trial Court reveals that the learned trial Court has properly examined and assessed the evidence on record and conclusions drawn by the trial Court with respect to conviction of the appellant under Section 324 r/w 34 of the IPC appears to be appropriate and no interference is called for in the findings recorded by the trial Court with respect of conviction under Section 324 r/w 34 of the IPC.

06. So far as sentence of imprisonment is concerned, perusal of paragraph - 20 of the impugned judgment reveals that the complainant and appellant entered into a compromise and filed the compromise petition before the trial Court, which was rejected on the ground that the offence was non- compoundable. Evidently, appellant has remained in custody from 06.03.2012 to 07.06.2012 and from 30.12.2015 to 02.03.2016, i.e. more than six months out of total imprisonment of one year.

07. Hence, in view of the above and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Ram Pujan Patel & Others v/s The State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1973) 2 SCC 456 (3 Judge Bench), Rajinder Singh v/s Delhi (Administration) reported in 1980 (SUPP) 337 and Malkiat Singh v/s State of Punjab reported in (1982) 3 SCC 371 (II), it is well established that even if the offence is non-compoundable, factum of compromise may be taken into consideration while awarding the sentence.

08. In view of the above, the appellant filed by the appellant is partly allowed. Appellant is sentenced with the period already undergone by him and with the fine as imposed by the trial Court.

09. Criminal Appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE Ravi