Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramroop 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 DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 27 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1998 of 2008
BETWEEN:-
1. RAMROOP S/O KAMAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT
20 YEARS, GRAM NIMANPUR TH.BAMHORI
DI.RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KAMAL SINGHS/O SHRI NANHEVEER GAUR,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, GRAM NIMANPUR
TH.BAMHORI DI.RAISEN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. LAKHAN SINGHS/O NANHEVEER GAUR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, GRAM NIMANPUR
TH.BAMHORI DI.RAISEN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. MADHO SINGHS/O SHRI NANHEVEER GAUR,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, GRAM NIMANPUR
TH.BAMHORI DI.RAISEN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY MR. MANISH DATT - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. NISHANK
PAL VERMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PS.BAMHORI
DI.RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MR. SOURABH SHUKLA - PANEL LAWYER)
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 12/29/2023
11:25:27 AM
2
ORDER
This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred
against a judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.09.2008
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Begumganj, District-Raisen (M.P.)
in S.T. No.79/2004 whereby the appellants have been convicted under
Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for 1 year each with fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation.
2. Prosecution case in nutshell is that on 28.01.2004, complainant
Parvat Singh was returning from his field after spraying the pesticides there
and when he reached near Durga Ji ki Madhiya, appellant Ramroop
stopped him and hold his collar and said to accompany him. Complainant
protested, on that appellant Ramroop scuffled with the complainant, at that
time, other appellants also reached there and assaulted him by lathi and
garsa. At that time, brother of the complainant namely Surendra Singh
reached there on that, appellant Lakhan caught hold him and Ramroop
assaulted Surendra Singh with lathi on his head. Kamal also assaulted
Surendra with lathi in the back. When the mother of the complainant Jamna
Bai reached, appellants Kamal and Ramroop also assaulted her then Ajab
Singh reached over there and intervened the dispute. The complainant
lodged the F.I.R at Police Station-Bamhori, District-Raisen and on that
basis Police Station-Bamhori registered Crime No.02/2004 for an offence
punishable under Sections 294, 341, 323, 506, 325, 307, 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. The complainant and injured persons were medically
examined. The accused/appellants were arrested. After completion of
investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court.
3. Trial Court framed charges against the appellants under Sections
323/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and read over to them who
abjured their guilt and prayed for trial.
4. The trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing both the
parties acquitted the appellants from charge under Section 307/34 of the
Indian Penal Code but convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above.
5. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has argued that the case
was registered on 28.01.2004 and appeal is pending since 2008. Trial
Court has convicted and sentence the appellants only under Section
323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He has further submitted that he has
expressly gave up his challenge to the findings of the Court below so far
as the conviction of the appellants is concerned. In other words, the
learned counsel for the appellants accepted the finding of conviction
passed against the appellants, however, he challenged the quantum of
punishment (one year R.I) alone, therefore, he prayed that the jail sentence
of the appellants be reduced suitably.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that
after appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the trial
Court has rightly found guilty the appellants for the aforesaid offence,
therefore, no grounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded
to the appellants hence, he prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
7. Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties
and on perusal of the impugned judgment and other material on record,
since counsel for the appellants has not pressed upon the conviction of the
appellants, therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Sections
323/34 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby affirmed.
8. So far as sentence is concerned, the incident took place 19 years
ago and in the considered view of this Court, no fruitful purpose is going
to be served by sending the appellants to jail after about 19 years of the
incident, when the jail sentence is not mandatory, therefore, it would be in
the interest of justice if the jail sentence of the appellants is set aside.
9. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of
the appellants recorded by the trial Court under Section 323/34 of the
Indian Penal Code is hereby affirmed. The jail sentence of the appellants is
reduced to the period already undergone by them and fine amount
imposed on the appellants under Section 323/34 is hereby quashed.
10. In this case, there are three injured persons namely (a) Parvat
Singh Meena, S/o Shri Madho Singh Meena (b) Surendra Singh, S/o Shri
Madho Singh Meena and (c) Jamna Bai, W/o Shri Madho Singh Meena, all
residents of Village-Neemnapur, Police Station-Bamhori, District-Raisen
and under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure each of the
appellants are directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to each of the injured (i.e.
Rs.9,000/- by each of the appellants) as compensation.
11. The appellants are directed to deposit the compensation amount
before the concerned trial Court within 90 days from today. If the
aforesaid amount is not deposited within the stipulated time period, then
the appellants shall undergo simple imprisonment of three months each.
The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds and surety bonds stand
discharged subject to deposit of aforesaid fine amount.
12. The order of the trial Court regarding the seized property is
maintained.
13. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately along with a
copy of this judgment for information and necessary action.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
julie
