Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramcharan 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. 1242 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
1. RAMCHARAN S/O GHANSIRAM PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BARHA P.S
MAHARAJPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. GHANSIRAM S/O JIVAN PATEL, AGED ABOUT 60
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BARHA P.S. MAHRAJPUR
DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI JITENDRA CHOURASIYA - PROXY COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF
SHRI ASHISH KURMI - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH P.S. MAHARAJPUR,
DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI RAVINDRA RAJPUT - 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
10/04/2014 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T.
No.225/2012, whereby the appellant No.1- Ramcharan Patel has been convicted
for offence under Section 3243 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year
and to pay fine amount of Rs.500/-; whereas appellant No.2- Ghansiram Patel
has been convicted for offence under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo RI for three years and to pay fine amount of Rs.1,000/- respectively
with default stipulation.
2. The incident relating to mar-peet, hurling filthy abuses and threatening
to kill was lodged to the Police Station Maharajpur, District Sagar by Dehati
Nalis (Ex.P/3), on the basis of which Crime No. 137/2011 was registered
against the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections
324, 323 and 506 and 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 material contradictions, omissions and
anomalies 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. Therefore, the appellants deserves to be acquitted from
the aforesaid offence and in alternative limb of prayer, he submits that incident
occurred on 16/12/2011 i.e. near about 12 years back, no criminal antecedents
have been attributed to the appellants. As per para 22 of impugned judgment,
the appellants remained in judicial custody for 8 days during trial, the appellant
No.2 is an old person aged about 72 years, therefore, sentence awarded to the
appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
5. Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the prayer by drawing attention of this
Court towards injuries caused to injured - Arun Vishwakarma (PW 1) submits
that the appellants have caused serious injuries to injured, which is evident from
the record, 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 Sections 324 and 326 of IPC are found to be clear, cogent and
consistent. The same is free from any material infirmity and anomaly. The
testimony of the complainant/injured - Arun Vishwakarma (PW 1) stands duly
supported with Dehati Nalis (Ex. P/5) and prosecution case further supported
by medical evidence available on record, therefore, it cannot be said that the
learned trial Court has committed any error in recording conviction of the
appellants for the offence under Sections 324 and 326 of I.P.C, hence,
conviction of appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections
324 and 326 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 16/12/2011, 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 and appellant No.2 is an old man aged about 72 years,
therefore, the period of sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already
undergone.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed maintaining the conviction
of appellants for offence under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC respectively and
reducing the jail sentence of appellant No.1 Ramcharan to the period already
undergone by him subject to enhancing fine amount of Rs.500/- to Rs.3,000/-
for commission of offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and jail
sentence of appellant No.2- Ghansiram for offence under Section 326 of IPC
has been reduced to the period already undergone by him subject to enhancing
fine amount of Rs.1,000/- to Rs.15,000/-, which will be paid to the complainant
Arun Kumar Vishwakarma S/o Bhagirath Prasad Vishwakarma, R/o Village
Barha, Police Station Maharajpur, District Sagar as compensation. The
appellants are directed to pay the remaining fine amount within a period of two
months from the date of passing of this judgment, failing which they will have to
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and six months
respectively.
11. The appellants are on bail, therefore, their bail bonds and personal
bonds are hereby discharged.
12. 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
