Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kanhaiyalal vs The State Of M.P. on 27 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 27 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 813 of 2004
BETWEEN:-
KANAHAIYALAL S/O FEKANLAL, AGED ABOUT 26
YEARS, CASTE PAWAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GARRA,
POLICE CHOUKI GARRA, P.S. WARASEONI, DISTRICT
BALAGHAT (M.P.)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI UMESH TRIVEDI - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI B.K. UPADHYAYA - DY. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 12.04.04 passed by
the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni, District Balaghat in S.T.No.
42/2004 convicting the appellant under Section 324 of IPC and sentencing him
to undergo R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs.2,000/- along with default
stipulations.
2. The prosecution case is that complainant/ injured Ramesh (P.W.1) was
working as labourer in village Garra Depot. He was coming back to his resident
at about 7:30 p.m. on 30.12.2003. In front of Sonkar's house appellant
Kanhaiyalal armed with knife waylaid him and threatening to kill him assaulted
with knife and caused several injuries on his chest, back, both hands and on the
head. The incident was reported and inscribed as Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/1) and
FIR (Ex. P/7) was registered at police station Waraseoni, District Balaghat
under Section 307 of IPC at Crime No. 436 of 2003.
3. Investigation was set in motion and after completion of investigation,
charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Magistrate of competent jurisdiction, who
after complying the provisions of Section 307 of Cr.P.C. committed the case
for trial to the Court of Sessions. The trial commenced. After completion of
trial, vide impugned judgment, learned trial Court convicted the appellant and
sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, submits that he
does not want to assail the findings of conviction against the appellant, but
looking to the fact that the appellant has remained in jail from 01.01.2004 to
28.02.2004 (i.e. 59 days), the incident occurred long ago i.e about 20 years
back, the appellant has no criminal antecedents, a lenient view may be taken as
regards the sentence and the same may be reduced to the period already
undergone by the appellant. He has no objection if the fine amount is enhanced.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and stated that the
conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is appropriate in the
facts and circumstances of the case as the appellant had caused as many as 9
injuries to the complainant on various parts of his body. Hence, this appeal is
liable to be dismissed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The evidence adduced in support of the allegations with regard to the
offence under Section 324 of IPC is found to be clear, cogent and consistent.
The statement of the complainant Ramesh (P.W.1) is supported by the FIR
(Ex.P/7) and M.L.C. report (Ex.P/6). The same is free from any material
infirmity and anomaly. The testimony of the complainant inspires confidence
and can be formed the sole basis of conviction.
8. Keeping in view the evidence available on record, it cannot be said that
the learned trial Court has committed any error in recording the conviction of
the appellant under Section 324 of IPC, therefore, conviction as recorded by
the trial Court withstands judicial scrutiny and is hereby affirmed. As regards,
the prayer made on behalf of the appellant regarding reduction of sentence, the
same appears to be reasonable. The dispute arose on a very trivial issue. The
incident occurred 20 years ago. The appellant is facing the trial and appeal for
last about 19 years. No criminal antecedents has been found proved against
him.
9. In view of the aforesaid, conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of
IPC is hereby upheld. Sentence of the appellant is hereby reduced to the period
already undergone by him while enhancing the fine amount from Rs. 2,000/- to
Rs.10,000/-.
10. The appellant shall have to deposit remaining enhanced amount of fine
within a period of two months from today before the concerned trial Court,
failing which he shall have to undergo R.I. for 6 months.
11. The appellant is on bail, therefore, his personal bond and bail bond
stand discharged.
12. The total amount of fine, if deposited or recovered from the appellant,
shall be given to the injured P.W.1 Ramesh S/o Shri Sumaratlal, resident of
village Garra, P.S. Waraseoni, District Balaghat as compensation.
13. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed.
14. A copy of this judgment along with the original record of the trial Court
be remitted forthwith to the concerned Court for compliance and necessary
action.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Vikram
Date: 2023.12.28 17:36:14 +05'30'
