Madhya Pradesh High Court
Eknath Mahar 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. 1826 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
1. EKNATH MAHAR S/O BAJIRAO MAHAR, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O VILL. NEAR P.S.SHAHPUR,
DISTT. BURHANPUR, MADHYA PRADESH.
2. SURESH S/O MOTIRAM MAHAR BOUDH, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O VILL. NEAR P.S. SHAHPUR,
DISTT. BURHANPUR, MADHYA PRADESH.
3. JANGALU MAHAR S/O TOTARAM MAHAR, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O VILL. NEAR P.S. SHAHPUR,
DISTT. BURHANPUR, MADHYA PRADESH.
4. SANTOSH MAHAR S/O HIRAMAD MAHAR, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O VILL. NEAR P.S. SHAHPUR,
DISTT. BURHANPUR, MADHYA PRADESH.
5. VINOD S/O SHANKAR MAHAR, AGED ABOUT 24
YEARS, R / O VILL. NEAR P.S. SHAHPUR, DISTT.
BURHANPUR, MADHYA PRADESH.
6. DEVANAND MAHAR S/O SHANKAR MAHAR,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, R / O VI LL. NER P.S.
SHAHPUR, DISTT. BURHANPUR, MADHYA
PRADESH.
7. PRAKASH S/O BAJIRAO MAHAR, AGED ABOUT 45
YEARSR / O VILL. NER, P.S. SHAHPUR, DISTT.
BURHANPUR, MADHYA PRADESH.
8. RAGHUNATH MAHAR S/O BAJIRAO MAHAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R / O VI LL. NER, P.S.
SHAHPUR, DISTT. BURHANPUR, MADHYA
PRADESH.
9. AATAMARAM MAHAR S/O FATURU MAHAR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R / O VI LL. NER, P.S.
SHAHPUR, DISTT. BURHANPUR, MADHYA
PRADESH.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 1/4/2024
2:16:35 PM
2
10. RAMESH MAHAR S/O FATARU MAHAR, AGED
ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O VILL. NER, P.S. SHAHPUR,
DISTT. BURHANPUR, MADHYA PRADESH.
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI SARVESH KUMAR JAISWAL - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
P.S.SHAHPUR, DISTT. BURHANPUR.
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANOOP SONKAR - PANEL LAWYER)
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 appellant/accused against the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.07.2015
passed by Special Judge (under SC/ST Act), Burhanpur in Special Case
No.52/2009, whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant for
commission of offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 323 and 324 of IPC and
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and fine of
Rs.500/- each, for six months each and fine of Rs.250/- each and one year each
and fine of Rs.250 each.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the incident occurred on
24.12.2006. The appellants are said to have been part of unlawful assembly and
came armed with sticks, stones and sharp edged cutting objects and abused the
injured Vineet with obscene words. They caused hurt to Dilip, Kadu and Kushal
with stones and also hit Dilip with sticks. Injured Sahib Rao and Suresh were hit
with sharp edged objects. This resulted in causing of simple injuries to the
injured persons.
3. The present appellants were charge-sheeted for commission of offence
under Sections 147, 148, 294, 336, 323, 324 and 506 of IPC. Charges were
framed against the appellants/accused. Accused/appellants denied the charges
and claimed to be tried.
4. As per the evidence and the material adduced on behalf of the
prosecution, the Trial Court found the offences 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-5 Dilip, PW-2 Sopan, PW-
1 Chudamani, PW-3 Gajanand, PW-7 Suresh, PW-8 Kadu, PW-10 Khushal
and PW-15 Harlal and other witnesses as well as medical witnesses. 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-appellant. 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 offender and the incident took place in the year
2006 and accused/appellants had faced trial and this appeal is pending since
2015 the accused/appellants had 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. Thus, this Court
deems it fit to reduce the sentence of the appellants to the period already
undergone by appellants No.1,2,5 and 6 (thirty six days) and other appellants
No.3,4,7,8,9 and 10 (twenty nine days) and to enhance the fine amount to
Rs.3000/- each.
9. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned conviction
is maintained. However, the appellants/accused are sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for the period they had already undergone i.e, appellants No.1,2,5
and 6 (thirty six days) and appellants No.3,4,7,8,9 and 10 (twenty nine days)
subject to depositing the further fine amount of Rs.3,000/- each 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 appellants 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 appellant/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
