Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju 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 VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 28 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2446 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
1. RAJU S/O RAGHUVEER PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 47
YEARS, R/O BADI PAYGA, KESHAVGANJ WARD,
SAGAR, MADHYA PRADESH.
2. SUNIL S/O DAMODAR PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 30
YEARSR / O BADI PAYGA, KESHAVGANJ WARD,
SAGAR, MADHYA PRADESH.
3. GOLU S/O DAMODAR PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 27
YEARSR / O BADI PAYGA, KESHAVGANJ WARD,
SAGAR, MADHYA PRADESH.
4. DAMODAR S/O RAGHUVEER PANDEY, AGED
ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O BADI PAYGA, KESHAVGANJ
WARD, SAGAR, MADHYA PRADESH.
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI SHAILENDRA VERMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, P.S MOTINAGAR, DISTRICT SAGAR.
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI NARENDRA SINGH LODHI - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing, this day, th e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellants/accused against the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.08.2016
passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Sessions Trial
No.900154/2013, whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellants
for commission of offence under Section 323/34 and 324/34 of IPC and to
Damodar under Section 452 of IPC also and sentenced them to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.300/- each and rigorous
imprisonment for one year and Rs.500 each and to Damodar additonal rigorous
imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/- respectively.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the incident occurred on
11.09.2012 when the cow of accused/appellant No.1 had entered the house of
complainant which was driven out by the complainant and on this matter, heated
arguments took place between the complainant and appellant No.1. This
incident occurred in the noon and at 09.30 p.m. in the night when complainant
and his mother were sitting in front of their house, the appellants are said to
have reached there with sticks and iron rods, used filthy language towards
complainant and his mother and assaulted complainant and his mother. Other
family members were also beaten by the appellants.
3. The appellants were tried under Sections 452, 294, 325, 326 and 34 of
I.P.C. but the trial Court has convicted them under Sections 323, 324 and 34 of
I.P.C. Appellant No.4 has been convicted under Section 452 also.
4. As per the evidence and the material adduced on behalf of the
prosecution, the Trial Court found the offence to be proved for offences as
mentioned in para-1 above.
5. This Court has gone through the entire evidence adduced on behalf of
the prosecution. The prosecution has examined PW-1 Monu Jain, PW-2 Usha,
PW-3 Surendra Jain, PW-5 Chandni Jain and other medical witnesses PW-6 Dr.
A.K. Jain. This Court has carefully gone through the evidence of the material
witnesses and eye-witnesses.
6. After having perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is
found that the findings recorded by the Trial Court upholding the guilt of the
accused-appellants are impeccable and the prosecution has succeeded in
proving the case against the accused-appellants. There is nothing in cross
examination of the witnesses that may demolish the prosecution case. Thus,
there is nothing in the said findings of the trial court that can be said to be
erroneous or perverse, warranting interference by this Court in Appellate
jurisdiction.
7. Thus, the conviction of the appellants as ordered by the trial court is
hereby upheld.
8. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances that deserve to be
taken in consideration so far as the sentence part is concerned. The
appellants/accused are first offenders and the incident took place in the year
2012 and accused/appellants has faced trial and this appeal is pending since
2016, the accused/appellants has been under trial or appearing before the Court
as condition to suspension of sentence since long. Nothing has come on record
regarding misuse of conditions of bail/suspension of sentence during the long
period since the prosecution, trial and appeal are pending. The appellants No.2
and 4 are stated to have undergone sentence of two months one day and four
days respectively. Appellants No.1 and 3 have not suffered any jail
imprisonment. Thus, this Court deems it fit to reduce the sentence of the
appellants No.2 and 4 to the period already undergone by them (two months
one day and four days) and appellants No.1 and 3 will surrender and undergo
one day imprisonment till rising of the Court. Fine amount is maintained but
each of the appellants are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- each to the victim in terms
of Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
9. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned conviction
is maintained. However, the appellants No.2 and 4 to the period already
undergone by them (two months one day and four days) and appellants No.1
and 3 will surrender before trial Court and undergo one day imprisonment till
rising of the Court. Fine amount is maintained but each of the appellants are
directed to pay Rs.5,000/- each to the victim in terms of Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
within a period of three months from today.
10. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Court
is not deposited within a period of three months from today, then the original
sentence would come into operation and appellant shall be taken into custody
or they would surrender themselves to serve the entire jail sentence of one year
as awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.
11. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
12. The bail bonds of the appellants/accused, if any, are discharged.
13. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court record
alongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for information
and necessary compliance.
14. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed and
disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
V. JUDGE
veni
