Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munna Kachhin 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. 262 of 2001
BETWEEN:-
MUNNA KACHHIN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(NONE FOR THE APPELLANT)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI PANKAJ TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
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 12.01.2001
passed by Special Judge (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989) District Panna in Special Case No.70/2000, whereby
the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant for commission of
offence under Sections 324 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six
months with fine Rs.500/- with default stipulation.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that incident took place on
18.06.2000, the complainant was said to be a Rickshawpuller and accused is
also stated to reside in the same locality. The accused to said to have taken
Rs.100/- loan from complainant and upon the wife of complainant demanding
the money back, he refused. When the complainant was searching for accused
and demanded his money back then there was some altercation between the
parties resulting in the accused hitting the complainant with wooden handle of
axe. This resulted into causing hurt to the complainant. Initially the offence was
registered under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST also but the trial Court has
convicted the appellants only under Sections 324 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/2-Shashi Kapoor, PW/4-
Anari and PW/5- Nowshad as well as medical evidence given by Doctor PW/7-
Kaneria. Though PW/4 and PW/5 have turned hostile but looking to the entirety
of evidence, the offences found to be duly proved.
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-appellant 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 2001, the accused/appellant 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. Thus, this Court deems it fit to reduce the sentence of the appellants
to the period already undergone by appellant for a period of seven days and to
enhance the fine amount to Rs. 5,000/-.
8. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned
conviction is maintained. However, the appellant/accused is sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for the period he has already undergone by appellant for
a period of seven days subject to depositing the further fine amount of
Rs.5,000/- by the appellant 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 he would surrender himself to serve the entire jail sentence of one year 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
