Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sujan Singh & Ors. 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. 700 of 2000
BETWEEN:-
1. SUJAN SINGH & ORS., AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAJU S/O BHAIRAV, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULUTRE VILLAGE
PATHARIYA TEHSIL PATAN (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MONTU S/O GAFLU, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULUTRE VILLAGE
PATHARIYA TEHSIL PATAN (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. GAFLU SINGH S/O DEVSINGH, AGED ABOUT 34
YEAR S , VILLAGE PATHARIYA TEHSIL PATAN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(NONE FOR THE APPELLANTS)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI TEEKARAM KURMI - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h 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 29.02.2000
passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge Jabalpur District Jabalpur in
Session Trial No.441/99, whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the
appellant No.1 for commission of offence under Sections 326 of I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for two and half year with fine Rs.500/-, and
appellants No.2 and 3 for commission of offence under Sections 323 of I.P.C.
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two months and for appellant No.4 and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for two months (two counts) w it h default
stipulations.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that incident took place on
25.11.1998 when complainant Veranlal was tilling his agricultural land by tractor
and the tractor was being driven by his nephew Shivkumar. At that time, there
was some altercation and relation to grazing of buffalo in the field when the
accused person stopped the son of servant of complainant from grazing his
buffalo in the field of accused. This led to an incident on the spur of moment
and the accused persons are said to have hit the complainant Veranlal and his
servant Mahesh as well as his grand-son Naresh.
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- Veranlal, PW/2-
Sheelkumar, PW/3-Mahesh, PW/4-Hallibai and PW/13- Naresh and medical
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
appellant/accused are first offender and the incident took place in the year 1998
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 appellant No. 1 (21 days), appellants No. 2 (13 days), appellant
No.3 (9 days) and appellant No.4 (13 days) (two counts) and to enhance the
fine amount to Rs. 5,000/- 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 appellant
No. 1 (21 days), appellants No. 2 (13 days), appellant No.3 (9 days) and
appellant No.4 (13 days) (two counts) subject to depositing the further fine
amount of Rs.5,000/- 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 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
