Santosh Singh vs The State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 22658 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Santosh Singh vs The State Of M.P. 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. 2649 of 2000

                         BETWEEN:-
                         1.    SANTOSH SINGH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    HARIBHAHAN S/O KANHAIYALAL YADAV,
                               AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, TILGAWAN POLICE
                               STATION KOTWALI PANNA (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....APPELLANT
                         (NONE FOR THE APPELLANTS )

                         AND
                         THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                               .....RESPONDENT
                         (BY SHRI TEEKARAM KURMI - PANEL LAWYER)

                               This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the 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 28.09.2000 passed by Special Judge (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989) District Panna in Special Case No.24/2000, whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted the

appellants for commission of offence under Sections 323 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months with fine Rs.500/- with default stipulations.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that incident took place on 10.02.2000 when the complainant was putting some structure for taking water to his agricultural land from the canal. The Accused persons were also watering their lands which are adjoining. There was some altercation between the parties in relation to distribution of water from the canal. The incident occurred on the spur of moment and the accused persons are said to have assaulted and caused hurt to complainant- Ramgopal, Munna and Tulsidas. Initially the offence was registered under Section 3(1)(x) of

SC/ST also but the trial Court has convicted the appellants only under Sections 323 IPC.

3. 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.

4 . This Court has gone through the entire evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. The prosecution has examined PW/1- Ramgopal, PW/2-Munna PW/3-Brijlal, PW/4-Tulsidas and other material witnesses.

5. 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.

6. Thus, the conviction of the appellants as ordered by the trial court is hereby upheld.

7. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances that deserve to be taken in consideration so far as the sentence part is concerned. The incident took place in the year 2000 and accused/appellant has faced trial and this appeal is pending since 2000, the accused/appellants have 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 for a period of two days and to enhance the fine amount to Rs. 1,000/- each

8. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned conviction is maintained. However, the appellants/accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period they have already undergone by appellants for a period of two days subject to depositing the further fine amount of Rs.1,000/- by each of the appellants within a period of three months from today.

9. 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 three months as awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.

10. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.

11. The bail bonds of the appellants/accused, if any, are discharged.

12. 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.

13. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.

(VIVEK JAIN) V. JUDGE Prar