Badrilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 22586 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Badrilal 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 INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
                                              ON THE 28 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                              CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 990 of 2016

                           BETWEEN:-
                           BADRILAL S/O BHAWARLAL GURJAR, AGED ABOUT 48
                           YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DEVJHIRI, P.S. KOTWALI,
                           RAJGARH, DISTRICT RAJGARH (BIAORA) (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANT
                           (SHRI SHIVENDRA SINGH RAWAT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                           APPELLANT)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRU. P.S.
                           KOTWALI, RAJGARH DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENT
                           (MS. HARSHLATA SONI,           LEARNED      PANEL   LAWYER    FOR    THE
                           RESPONDENT/STATE)

                                 Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                           following:
                                                                   ORDER

This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.07.2016, passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Rajgarh Biaora in Special Case No.52/2013, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submits that he is not

challenging this appeal on merit and confines his argument on the point of sentence only. He further submits that trial Court has acquitted the appellant with respect to offence under SectionS 341, 506-II, 294 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act and only convicted the appellant under Section 325 of IPC. As per medical report, fracture is found in distal end of IInd metacarpal bone of left hand. Appellant has remained in custody for a period of four days during trial. Incident relates to the year 2013. Therefore, in view of above, sentence of appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that trial Court has

rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. Sentence imposed by the trial Court cannot be said to be excessive. Hence, no interference is called for in the findings recorded by the trial Court and appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

5. I have gone though the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Perusal of the testimony of injured/complainant Bhanwarlal reveal that he is wholly reliable witness and his testimony stands corroborated by other evidence on record, including FIR as well as medical evidence. Thus, from the evidence on record it is clearly established that appellant assaulted Bhanwarlal with stick and caused fracture in distal end of IInd metacarpal bone of left hand. Hence, it cannot be said that trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant under Section 325 of IPC.

6. So far as sentence is concerned, learned trial Court has sentenced the appellant under Section 325 of IPC with 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/-

with default stipulation. The present incident relates to the year 2013. As per medical report, there is fracture in distal end of IInd metacarpal bone of left hand. There are no criminal antecedents against the appellant and he remained in custody for four days during trial.

7 . In view of overall facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice would be served if appellant is sentenced with the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount.

8. Hence, in view of discussion in the foregoing paras, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed and appellant is sentenced with the period already undergone by him and by enhancing fine amount to Rs.11,000/- and in default of fine, six months R.I. If the fine amount is not paid within three months from today, appellant shall surrender before the trial Court to undergo the remaining part of the sentence of imprisonment passed by the trial Court.

9. Fine amount, if any, already deposited, be adjusted in fine amount enhanced above. After realisation of above fine amount of Rs.11,000/-, the injured be paid Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

10. With the aforesaid present appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated above.

(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL) V. JUDGE RJ