Madhya Pradesh High Court
Samsan Ishai 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 VINAY SARAF
ON THE 28 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5840 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
SAMSAN ISHAI S/O YAKUB ISHAI, AGED ABOUT 47
YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR GALI NO.4 UJARPURVA
P.S. LARDGANJ DIST. JABALPUR (M.P)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI VIRENDRA KUMAR KEWAT - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S. LARDGANJ
DIST. JABALPUR (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIJAY PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction dated
13.06.2019 passed by Learned Fourth Addl. Session Judge, Jabalpur in S.T
No.391/2015 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 324 and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.1000/- in default two
months simple imprisonment, under Section 448 of of IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500/- in default 15 days simple
imprisonment and under Section 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act sentenced to undergo
R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500/- in default 2 months simple imprisonment.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial,
the appellants remained in custody since 10.04.2015 to 13.07.2015. He prayed
for acquittal of the appellant.
3 . Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State
supported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved the
incident and the learned Session Court has rightly convicted the appellant under
Sections 324 & 448 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1-B)(b) of
Arms Act.
4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of
record, it appears that on 08.04.2015, a report was lodged which was registered
as Crime No. 146/2015 at Police Station- Lordganj, District- Jabalpur, under
Sections450 and 307 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of Arms Act
by Smt. Goramma against the appellant whereby, she alleged that the appellant
entered in her house with an intention to cause death and caused injury to her by
sword and ran away. During investigation a sword was seized from the
possession of the appellant and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.
The prosecution examined 9 witnesses however, 2 witnesses were examined by
defence. Learned Session Judge by judgment dated 13.06.2019 acquitted the
appellant from the charges punishable under Section 307 of IPC and convicted
under Section 324. Similarly, acquitted from the offence punishable under
Section 450 however convicted under Section 448 of IPC and under Section
25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act and sentenced as stated hereinabove. The incident was
duly proved by informant Goramma examined as PW-1, PW-2 (Aarti) and PW-
3 (Laxman) supported the statement of PW-1. Howeve, the witnesses of
memorandum recorded under Section 27 of Evidence Act and seizure memo
were turned hostile examined as PW-5 (Rahul Patel) and PW-10 (Umesh
Yadav) and they did not support the prosecution case. PW-7 (Dr. Vijay
Parihar) explained the injuries. PW-9 (Sub-Inspector Anil Patel) stated in
respect of the seizure of the iron sword from the possession of the appellant.
The appellant examined DW-1 (Laxman) who stated that Goramma has not
sustained any injury by sword and she sustained the injury by stone. According
to the medical report of the victim, the injury sustained by her was caused by
hard and blunt object.
5. In view of above, the prosecution failed to prove the offence
punishable under Section 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act and the independent
witnesses did not support the prosecution case in respect of seizure of sword
and no injury was caused by hard and sharp object. Consequently, the
conviction under Section 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act is set aside and the appellant
is acquitted from the charge of Section 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act. However, the
conviction under Section 324 and 448 of IPC are based on due appreciation of
evidence and the same is upheld.
6. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year
2015, the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the
appellant on record, there is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under
Section 324 and 448 of IPC, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the
appellant to the extent of the period which he has already undergone and
accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced. However, fine is enhanced from Rs.
1000/- to Rs.5000/- under Section 324 of IPC and Rs.500/- to Rs.1500/- under
Section 448 of IPC. The appellant shall deposit the enhanced amount within a
period of two months from today. The appellant is on bail, his personal bonds
and bail bonds be discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
7 . Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the
judgment.
(VINAY SARAF)
V. JUDGE
Shub
