Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagirath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 28 December, 2023
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 28 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 42 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
1. BHAGIRATH S/O SHRI BHARATPURI, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS,
2. NAROTTAM S/O BHARATPURI GOSWAMI, AGED
ABOUT 23 YEARS,
3. RAJU S/O BHARATPURI, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
4. MANOJ S/O BHARATPURI, AGED ABOUT 19
YEARS,
R/O GRAM GAUNDAULI GHURAI PS. TENTARA,
DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. POLICE
STATION TENTARA, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI )
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Appellants have filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. being
aggrieved b y judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26/12/2015
passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, District Morena in
S.T.No.184/2009; whereby, learned trial Court convicted appellant No. 1 and 4-
Bhagirath and Manoj for offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced them
to undergo one year RI each with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of
payment of fine to further undergo 15 days imprisonment each; whereas,
appellant No. 2 has been convicted for offence under Section 326 of IPC and
sentenced to suffer three years RI with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine to further undergo two months RI and appellant No. 3- Raju
has been convicted for offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to
suffer two years RI with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to
further undergo one month imprisonment.
2. Although this appeal has been filed on merits but today, learned
counsel for the appellants pressed the appeal only regarding sentence part is
concerned and do not press the conviction part as mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel for the State expressed no objection if the above
prayer is allowed.
4 . Although, conviction part of the impugned judgment has not been
pressed on merits but to do substantial justice, judgment of the trial Court is
perused, oral and documentary evidence seen and after perusing the judgment
as well as the record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has properly
recorded the conviction of the appellants as mentioned hereinabove. Hence,
their conviction is hereby affirmed; however, regarding quantum of sentence,
while reducing the jail sentence to the period already undergone by them which
is 8 days, while maintaining the sentence of payment of fine amount under
Section 323 of IPC in case of appellants No. 1 and 4, the fine amount in case of
appellant No. 2 Narrottam for commission of offence under Section 326 of IPC
is enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- and in case of appellant No. 3, for
commission of offence under Section 324 of IPC, the fine amount is enhanced
from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- and if fine amount as imposed by the trial
Court has already been deposited by the appellants, same be adjusted. Out of
the enhanced fine amount of Rs. 21,000/- to be deposited by the appellant No.
2 and 3, Rs.10,000/- be paid to victims Ramganesh and Rs. 5,000/- each be
paid to victims Ramlal and Shyamlal as compensation, and if necessary by
summoning them. If appellants deposit fine amount as directed hereinabove
within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order, as the jail sentence of appellants has already been suspended, their bail
bonds shall stand discharged and if they fails to deposit the fine amount, they
have to undergo total jail sentence of one month each.
5. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part with the above observations.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
information.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
V. JUDGE
JPS/-
