Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kundan And 2 Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 27 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 250 of 2013
BETWEEN:-
1. KUNDAN AND 2 ORS. S/O RAN SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
VILLAGE DOLATPUR P.S. SONKATCH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. PAPPU @ MAHENDRA S/O MANGILAL , AGED
ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDETN VIL.
DOLATPUR,P.S. SONKATCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MANGILAL S/O RAMSINGH POLAYE, AGED
ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE VIL.
DOLATPUR P.S. SONKATCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY MS. POORVA MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE THROUGH LEGAL AID)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT. THRU. P.S.
SONKATCH DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI A.S. PARIHAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This Criminal appeal has been filed under section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
being aggrieved by judgement dated 13.02.2013 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Sonkatch, Dist. Dewas in ST No.328/2011 whereby the
appellants/accused has been convicted under section 323 of IPC and sentenced
to undergo R.I. for a period of six months imprisonment.
2. The facts in brief are that appellants/accused were tried with two other
persons under Sections 308, 323/34, 294, 506 Part-II of IPC in connection with
Crime No.243/2011 registered at P.S. Sonkatch, Dist. Dewas concerning the
incident dated 25.06.2011 at 9 AM at Mataji Ke Chowk, Village Daulatpur, Dist.
Sonkatch in which Silabai was injured. Appellants/accused abjured the guilt and
the trial Court appreciating the evidence of victim Silabai (PW-6) and Medical
Officer Dr. Aarti Choudhary (PW-4) convicted the appellants/accused under
Section 323 of IPC, acquitting them from rest of the charges and sentenced as
per para-1.
3. Challenging the conviction and sentence, this appeal has been
preferred on the ground that trial Court has committed error in believing the
prosecution witnesses and discarding the defence version. The trial Court
committed error in not considering the material omissions and contradictions in
the statement of prosecution witnesses. The trial Court has based on judgment
of surmises and conjectures only.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the conviction and
sentence.
6. Now we are considering the quantum of sentence and extension of
benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to appellants/accused.
7. The trial Court has discarded the omissions and contradictions in para-
13 of the judgment. The trial Court has discussed the defence version in para-18
of the judgment and also discussed the incident of Crime No.244/11. The trial
Court has recorded cogent reasons on re-appreciation of the evidence, the
findings of trial Court in convicting the appellants/accused under Section 323 of
IPC does not call for interference. Hence, the conviction of appellants/accused
under Section 323 of IPC is affirmed.
8. Looking to the nature of the incident, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and the character of appellants/accused, it is
expedient to release them on probation of good conduct under section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
9 . This appeal is partly allowed and the conviction of the
appellants/accused under Sections 323 of IPC is affirmed. The finding of the
trial court regarding the sentence is modified and instead of sentencing the
appellants/accused at once it is directed that appellants/accused be released on
bail entering into bond with surety of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
Only) to the satisfaction of the trial court within a period of 90 days to appear
and receive sentence when called upon by the trial Court during a period of 3
years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior.
10. With the aforesaid, the criminal appeal is partly allowed and
disposed off.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
soumya
