Har Prasad Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 22487 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Har Prasad Prajapati 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 VINAY SARAF
                                             ON THE 27 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                            CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2391 of 2013

                           BETWEEN:-
                           HAR PRASAD PRAJAPATI S/O JAG PRASAD PRAJAPATI,
                           AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, VILL. NAHDOURA, P.S.
                           RAJNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI SUKHNANDAN PANDEY - ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF SHRI B.J.
                           CHOURASIA - ADVOCATE )

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.                     P.S.
                           RAJNAGAR CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY MS. SHIKHA BAGHEL - PANEL LAWYER)

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

By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 06.09.2013 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge District-Chhatarpur in S.T. No.346/2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default, 3 months simple imprisonment.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial,

the appellant remained in custody since 26.09.2011 to 30.09.2011. He prayed

for acquittal of the appellant.

3 . Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State supported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved the incident and the learned sessions Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code.

4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of record, it appears that on 14.07.2011, a report was lodged by Narendra Singh Thakur against the present appellant and three others, which was registered as Crime No. 138/11 at Police Station- Rajnagar, District- Chhatarpur, under Sections 323, 294,, 324, 506-B/34 of Indian Penal Code. During investigation,

Section 307 of IPC was added and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Prosecution examined 11 witnesses and however, defence examined DW-1 (Ram Dayal Prajapati). The learned Session Court by judgment dated 06.09.2013 acquitted co-accused Ram Dayal and Gayadeen from all the charges and acquitted the present appellant from the charges punishable under Section 307 of IPC however, found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced as stated hereinabove.

5. Prosecution witness PW-1 (Narendra Singh) PW-3 (Munna Singh), PW-4 (Rajabai) duly proved the incident and involvement of the present appellant causing injury to the victim. The injuries were explained by PW-6 (Dr. Pankaj Rashtogi). It appears that findings of the learned Sessions Judge recorded after due appreciation of evidence and do not require any interference. T he conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of IPC is based on the material available in the record.

6. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year

2011, the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellant on record. There is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Sections 324 of Indian Penal Code, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellant to the extent of the period which he has already undergone and accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced. However, fine is enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to 5000/-. The appellant shall deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from today. The appellant is on bail, his personal bonds and bail bonds be discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.

7 . Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.

(VINAY SARAF) JUDGE Shub