Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunny Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 28 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 463 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
1. SUNNY SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI NAVEEN
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O
KANCHANPUR, ADHARTAL, JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DEEPAK CHOUBEY S/O LATE SHRI
KAMTAPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O
KANCHANPUR ADHARTAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. ANCHAN PANDEY - PROXY COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF SHRI O.S.
PANDEY - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
ADHARTAL JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI RAJEEV PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (in short 'Code') assails the impugned judgment and order dated
23/01/2017 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.
No.680/2011, whereby the appellants have been convicted for commission of
offence punishable under Section 324/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI
for 15 days and to pay fine amount of Rs.2,000/-each respectively with default
stipulation.
2 . The incident relating to mar-peet with Rakesh Sharma (PW 1) and
Nitin Sharma (PW 2) was reported to police station Adhartal, on the basis of
which Crime No. 449/2011 was registered against the appellants for
commission of offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC. Investigation
was set in motion and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was before
the court of competent jurisdiction.
3 . Learned trial Court after affording opportunity of hearing to the
concerned parties and due appreciation of evidence brought on record, vide
impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned here-
in-above, which has been challenged by way of this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for appellants challenging the findings of conviction
and sentence recorded by the trial Court by contending that the trial Court has
committed error in ignoring the serious anomalies, material contradictions,
omissions present in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The trial Court
has also committed serious error of law and fact in holding the appellants guilty
for aforesaid offence. She further submits that the appellants have entered into
compromise with the complainants/inured and they have also moved an
application before the trial Court in this regard. Therefore, the appellants
deserves to be acquitted from the aforesaid offence and in limb alternative, he
submits that incident occurred on 27/08/2011 i.e. near about 12 years back, no
criminal antecedents have been attributed to the appellants. As per para 23 of
impugned judgment, the appellants remained in judicial custody for 18 days and
29 days respectively, therefore, sentence awarded to the appellants may be
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
5 . Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the prayer by contending that the
learned trial Court has not committed any error of law and fact in convicting
and sentencing the appellants for the aforesaid offence, therefore, there is no
need to interference in the findings recorded by the trial court for conviction
and sentence. Being devoid of merits present appeal deserves 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 324/34 of IPC is found to be clear, cogent and
consistent. The same is free from any material infirmity and anomaly. The
testimony of the complainant/injured -Rakesh Sharma (PW 1) and Nitin Sharma
(PW 2) stand duly supported with FIR (Ex.P/3) and MLC report of injured
(Ex. P/8 and P/9) were duly supported with the testimony of Dr. Shri K.C.
Kosta (PW 3), therefore, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has
committed any error in recording conviction of the appellants for the offence
under Section 324/34 of I.P.C, hence, conviction of appellants for commission
of offence punishable under Section 324/34 of IPC respecitvely is hereby
affirmed.
8. As regards, sentence prayer made on behalf of the appellants appears
to be reasonable. Incident took place on 27/08/2011, 12 years back and not
premeditated and occurred at sudden impulse. No criminal antecedents are
attributed to the appellants. The factum of custody has also not been disputed
and looking to the facts that the appellants are facing trial and present appeal for
more than 12 years, the period of sentence deserves to be reduced to the
period already undergone.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed maintaining the conviction
of appellants for offence under Section 324/34 of IPC and reducing the jail
sentence of appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them.
10. The appellants are on bail, therefore, their bail bonds and personal
bonds are hereby discharged.
11. Record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent
forthwith to the concerned Court for information and necessary action.
Certified copy as per rules.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
V. JUDGE
skt
