Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harishchandra Yadav @ Harisingh 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 BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 28 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10131 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. HARISHCHANDRA YADAV @ HARISINGH S/O
SHRI BHAJJU YADAV, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O GRAM KARMORA, PS
JATARA, DISTT. TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SHIVPAL YADAV S/O SHRI CHIMAN YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O
GRAM KARMORA, PS JATARA, DISTT.
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAGVEER @ RAGHUVEER S/O SHRI PHOOLA
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LAB OUR R/O GRAM KARMORA, PS JATARA,
DISTT. TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PATEL - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR P.S. JATARA
DISTT. TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
(BY MS. SHAKTI TRIPATHI - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short "Code") assails the judgment and order dated
15/11/2019 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Jatara, Distt.
Tikamgarh in ST no.100072/2016, whereby appellants have been convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC (on
two counts) each and have been sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine
of Rs.2000/- each with default stipulation.
2. The incident relating to the assault with axe was reported to the Police
Station Jatara, Distt. Tikamgarh, where FIR (Ex.P/1) was registered on Crime
No. 86/2014 for the offence under Sections 294, 323, 506-B read with Section
34 of the IPC. The investigation was set in motion and on its completion,
charge sheet was filed. Learned trial Court after affording an opportunity of
hearing to the parties concerned and on due appreciation of the evidence on
record vide impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as
mentioned hereinabove.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants challenging the conviction and sentenced
submits that the learned trial Court has ignored serious anomalies,
contradictions and omissions present in the testimony of prosecution witnesses
including the injured persons. Learned trial Court has committed serious error
of fact and law in recording the findings of conviction. Hence, the appellants are
entitled for acquittal. In alternative limb of prayer, counsel for the appellants
submits that as per paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment, a counter case was
also registered against the complainant. Setting aside the jail sentence of the
appellants, injured persons may be compensated by enhancing the fine amount.
4. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer opposed the prayer and submits that the
impugned judgment is based on due appreciation of the evidence and needs no
interference. Therefore, she prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The evidence adduced in support of the allegation with regard to offence
u/s. 324/34 of the IPC is found to be clear, cogent and consistent. The same is
free from any material infirmity and anomaly. The testimony of injured persons
namely Ramkishan Yadav (PW/1) and Ramkumar Yadav (PW/2) stands duly
corroborated with first information report (Ex.P/1) and also MLC reports
(Ex.P/7 & P/8) which have been proved by Dr. Suresh Sharma (PW/8), who
medically examined the injured persons. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that the
learned trial Court has committed any error in recording conviction for offence
u/s.324/34 of the IPC in view of the evidence available on record. Hence,
finding of conviction is affirmed.
7 . As regards the sentence, the prayer made on behalf of the appellants
appears to be reasonable. Looking to the fact that a counter case was registered
against the complainant due to which the accused persons suffered grievous
injuries. The appellants have no criminal antecedents. Therefore, the period of
sentence deserves to be set aside by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.2000/-
to 5000/- on each of the appellant for the offence under Section 324/34 of the
IPC (on two counts). Appellants will have to deposit the enhanced amount of
fine within a period of 60 days from the date of judgment passed by this Court,
before the concerned trial Court failing which the appellants will have to
undergo RI for three months.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed on the point of sentence as
mentioned herein above. The conviction of the appellants is maintained. The
appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds and personal bonds are discharged.
9. The original record of the learned trial Court along with the copy of the
judgment be forthwith sent back to the learned trial Court for compliance and
necessary action.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
V. JUDGE
m/-
