Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hukum Singh Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 28 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 994 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
1. HUKUM SINGH PARMAR S/O SHRI GHASIRAM
PARMAR OCCUPATION: DRIVER VILLAGE KITYA
TEH. KANNOD DISTT. DEWAS/ ABADI PALIA
ROAD TEH.HATOD INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PREM SINGH PARMAR S/O GHASIRAM PARMAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
VILLAGE KITYA TEHSIL KANNOD DEWAS /
CURRENT ADDRESS NAI ABADI PALIA ROAD
TEHSIL HATOD INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI ANURAG VYAS, LEARNED COUNSEL THROUGH LEGAL AID)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THRU.P.S.KANNOD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR, PANEL LAWYER.)
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This Criminal appeal has been filed under section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
being aggrieved by judgement dated 05.07.2016 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Kannod, District Dewas (M.P.) in S.T. No.267/2010 whereby
the appellants/accused had been convicted under section 435 read with sub
section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 1-1 year R.I. with fine of
Rs.1,000/-Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation of 7 days of additional R.I.
2. Prosecution story in short is that, daughter of complainant Dileep
Singh was married to appellant-Hukum Singh Parmar and appellant Prem Singh
Parmar is real brother of Hukum Singh Parmar. Dileep Singh married her
daughter to another person by Nathara custom without formal proceeding of
divorce with Hukum Singh Parmar. A dispute arose between Dileep Singh and
accused persons regarding the amount of gift that were offered at the time of
marriage and accused persons set fire in the cart of grass and desi khaad valued
to Rs.10,000/-. The report was lodged at police station Khannod, District
Dewas under section 435 read with section 34 of IPC against
appellants/accused and co-accused Antar Singh as Crime No.166/2010. On
submitting final report Sessions Trial No.267/2010 were proceeded against all
the three accused persons. The trial Court has convicted all the three accused
persons and sentence to under go one-one year R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- -
Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation of seven days additional R.I. As accused
Antar Singh died during the proceeding of the trial court therefore, proceeding
against him is abated.
3. Challenging the conviction and sentence this appeal has been preferred
by the appellants on the ground that trial court has recorded the finding without
discussing any of the evidences of the appellants. Major variations and
contradictions have been ignored. Old dispute pertaining to award the
appellants demands from complainant and her daughter. Appellant Prem Singh
Parmar had suffered injuries in the incident.
4. Counsel for the respondent/State has supported the conviction and
sentence.
5. Heard Shri Anurag Vyas, advocate appointed through Legal Aid and
perused the record.
6. The trial court has recorded the finding of conviction relying on the
testimony of Dileep Singh (P.W.-1), Mahendra (P.W.-2) and Kailash (P.W.-3)
and spot map prepared by the Investigating Officer, A.S.I., B.N. Singh (P.W.-
4) and the panchnama (Exhibit-P/3). The trial Court has discussed the
improvement and omissions in paragraph-16 of the Judgment and discussed the
effect in paragraph-17 of the judgment. On re-appreciating the testimony of
Dileep Singh (P.W.-1) and Mahendra (P.W.2), Kailash (P.W.-3) and
Investigating Officer, A.S.I., B.N. Singh (P.W.-4) and perusal of (Exhibit-P/2
and P/3) no interference is called for in the findings recorded by the trial court
and the conviction of the appellants/accused under section 435 read with
section 34 of the IPC is affirmed.
7. The trial court has recorded the circumstance of the case under
paragraph-25 and 26 of the judgment. It is also recorded that the
appellants/accused have no criminal antecedents and has also recorded the
positive finding of conduct of the appellants/accused even after the incident up
to the end of trial.
8. In this case, there is no criminal antecedent of the appellants/accused.
They are facing the trial from 2010. Looking to the nature of the incident, having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the character of
appellants/accused as first offender, it is expedient to release them on probation
of good conduct under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
9. The appeal is partly allowed and the finding of the trial court
regarding the sentence is modified and instead of sentencing the
appellants/accused at once it is directed that appellants/accused be released on
bail entering into bond with surety of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand
Only) each to the satisfaction of the trial court within a period of 90 days to
appear and receive sentence when called upon by the trial Court during a period
of 3 years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior.
10. Under Section 5 of Probation Of Offenders Act, 1958 the
appellants/accused shall also pay Rs.4,000/-(Rupees Four Thousand Only)
e a c h to the Dileep Singh S/o Khusilal R/o-Devsiralia P.S.-Kannod, District
Dewas as compensation for the loss suffered for the commission of offence.
The appellants/accused shall deposit the compensation amount within 90 days
failing which the said amount shall be recovered from appellants/accused in
accordance with law. The amount of fine deposited by the appellants/accused
before the trial court shall be adjusted towards in amount of compensation.
11. With the aforesaid, the criminal appeal is disposed off.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
V. JUDGE
ajit
