Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 December, 2023
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 28th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8207 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
RAKESH YADAV S/O SHRI HEERALAL YADAV
AGED 32 YEARS, VILLAGE BARKHEDA
P.S. BIAORA DISTT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(MR. RAVINDRA SINGH PARMAR, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
P.S. BIAORA DISTT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(MS. HARSHLATA SONI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court
passed the following:
JUDGMENT
With the consent of counsel for the parties, matter is
finally heard.
(2) Appellant has preferred this criminal appeal against the
judgment dated 06.10.2018 passed by learned Special Judge
(SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989, Rajgarh (Biaora) in Special Case
No.35/2016 convicting the appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
sentencing the appellant with one year RI and Section 3(2)
(VA) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST (PA)
Act') with one year RI and fine of Rs.500/- with further
default stipulation.
(3) Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submits
that he is not challenging the conviction part of judgment but
is challenging the sentence part of judgment. He further
submits that trial Court has wrongly sentenced the appellant
both under Section 324 of IPC and Section 3(2)(VA) of SC/ST
Act. Referring to provision of Section 3(2)(VA) of SC/ST Act,
it is submitted that appellant could have been sentenced only
under Section 324 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(VA) of
SC/ST Act and not separately under both provisions of law. It
is also urged that nature of injuries sustained by injured is
simple in nature as per medical evidence and there is only one
superficial scratch wound on the body of injured person. The
incident relates to the year 2016. Hence, appellant be
sentenced with fine only and sentence of imprisonment be set-
aside.
(4) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State
submits that learned trial Court has rightly convicted the
appellant under aforesaid sections but she fairly admits that
trial Court has wrongly sentenced the appellant under both
provisions of aforesaid law. Hence, appeal filed by appellant
may be partly allowed with respect to sentence.
(5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the record of the case.
(6) I have gone through the evidence adduced by the
prosecution. A perusal of testimony of injured/complainant
Ramcharan reveals that he has clearly deposed that appellant
assaulted him with knife and thereby causing injury below
eye. Perusal of depositions of Ramcharan and lilabai reveal
that there are no material contradictions and omissions in their
court testimonies as well as police statements and deposition
of lilabai corroborates testimony of Ramcharan. Deposition of
Ramcharan and FIR Ex.P/2 reveals that FIR has been lodged
immediately after the incident and there is no delay in lodging
the FIR. Further, there are no contradictions and omissions in
Ramcharan's court testimony and FIR Ex.P/2. Thus,
deposition of Ramcharan stands corroborated from FIR
Ex.P/2 and medical evidence on record. It is apparent from the
records of the case that no previous enmity is established
between the parties and there is no material on record to show
that appellant has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid
offence.
(7) Hence, in view of above, it cannot be said that trial
Court has erred in finding the appellant guilty under Section
324 of IPC and Section 3(2)(VA) of SC/ST Act. Hence,
findings recorded with respect to conviction, as above, are
affirmed.
(8) So far as sentence is concerned, a bare perusal of
Section 3(2)(VA) of SC/ST Act shows that if offence as
specified under Section 3(2)(VA) of SC/ST Act is proved, in
that case, the accused is to be punished with such punishment
as specified under the IPC.
(9) In view of above and even otherwise, in this court's
opinion, appellant cannot be punished twice for the same
offence under two different provisions of law or enactments.
Hence, learned trial Court has erred in sentencing the
appellant both under Section 324 of IPC as well as under
Section 3(2)(VA) of SC/ST Act. It is also evident from
medical evidence on record that injured Ramcharan has
sustained simple injury i.e. superficial scratch wound. Hence,
in view of above, ends of justice would be served, if sentence
of imprisonment is set-aside and appellant be sentenced with
fine only.
(10) Resultantly, the appeal filed by appellant is partly
allowed and the appellant is sentenced under Section 324 of
IPC read with Section 3(2)(VA) of SC/ST Act with fine of
Rs.1500/- and in default, one month's Simple Imprisonment.
The appellant is directed to deposit the aforesaid enhanced
amount within three months from today failing which he shall
surrender before the trial Court to undergo remaining sentence
of imprisonment imposed by trial Court. Fine amount, if any,
deposited by the appellant including under Section 3(2)(VA)
of SC/ST Act be adjusted against the enhanced fine amount.
(11) With the aforesaid, the appeal stands partly allowed to
the extent indicated herein above.
(12) Certified copy, as per Rules.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
Arun/-
ARUN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE,
2.5.4.20=d5b56e3de75e7828ced1a96bc4f018
04c3ea1f0a5497e4019e41c0a82cbabbf0,
NAIR
postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=192F2423E128DC1CC004DD8F
F22B3F2FFC3D1EF75981FCBEF3B2B76823F27
0F7, cn=ARUN NAIR
Date: 2023.12.28 16:17:31 +05'30'
