Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kalam Ahmad 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. 2094 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
KALAM AHMAD S/O NAZIR AHMAD, AGED ABOUT 32
YEARS, BHENSADEHI P.S. NAINPUR DISTT. MANDLA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI R.S. RAJPUT - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S. NAINPUR
AJK MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI V.K. PANDEY - 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
03.08.2015 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
Mandla in S.T. No.29/2014 whereby the appellant has been convicted under
Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.
1000/- in default 15 days R.I.
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 from 29.09.2014 to 30.09.2014.
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 Special 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 09.09.2014, a report was lodged by Sita Ram against
the appellant, which was registered as Crime No. 338/2014 at Police Station-
Nainpur, District-Mandla , under Sections 323, 324, 294 and 190 of Indian
Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act. After investigation,
charge-sheet was filed. Prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in support of
the prosecution case, whereas, the defence has not examined by anyone. The
learned Special Judge considered the evidence by judgment dated 03.08.2015
acquitted the present appellant from the offences punishable under Section 3(1)
(X) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and 294 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC
however, convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced as stated
hereinabove.
5. PW-2 (Sita Ram) has duly proved the incident however, PW-4 (Sevati
Bai) has supported the statement of Sita Ram. PW-5 (Dr. Surendra Barkhede)
explained the injuries sustained by Sita Ram. In view of above, no error
committed by learned Special Judge in convicting the appellant under Section
324 of IPC and consequently, the judgment of conviction is upheld. It appears
that findings of the learned Special Court is based on due appreciation of
evidence and does not require any interference.
6. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year
2014, 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 Rs.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
