Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanju 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. 666 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
1. SANJU S/O SHIV PRASAD YADAV, AGED ABOUT 26
YE A R S , VILL. MUKTAPUR, P.S. CHHIPAWAD,
HARDA, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHINTARAM S/O RAM PRASAD, CASTE GAWALI,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, VILL. AZRUDMAL, P.S.
CHHIPAWAD, DISTT. HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KRIPARAM S/O RAM PRASAD, CASTE GAWALI,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, VILL. AZRUDMAL, P.S.
CHHIPAWAD, DISTT. HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PARASRAM S/O RAM PRASAD, CASTE GAWALI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, VILL. AZRUDMAL, P.S.
CHHIPAWAD, DISTT. HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. MANSARAM S/O RAM PRASAD, CASTE GAWALI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, VILL. AZRUDMAL, P.S.
CHHIPAWAD, DISTT. HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI SUMAN SINGH RAJPUT - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH P.S. SC/ST
CHHIPAWAD HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS SHANTI TIWARI PANEL LAWYER )
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (or short "Code") assails the judgment and order dated
17.02.2014 passed passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Harda (M.P.) in Special
Case No. 39 of 2012 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the
offence under Sections 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each.
2. The incident relating to marpit and calling name by the caste was reported
to the concerned Police Station SC/ST Chhipawad District Harda (M.P.) on
11.04.2012 where it was registered on Crime No. 91 of 2012 under Section 341,
294, 323, 506, & 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The investigation was
set in motion and on its completion charge-sheet was filed . Learned trial Court
after hearing the concerned parties and on due appreciation of the evidence on
record vide impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as
mentioned hereinabove.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the conviction and sentence
submits that the learned trial Court ignored serious anomalies, contradictions
and omissions present in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. He has
committed serious error of fact and law in recording the findings of guilt. The
appellant is entitled for acquittal. In the alternative, appellant has remained in jail
from 08.05.2012 to 09.05.2012 i.e. 02 days. Incident occurred near about 11
years back, therefore, he prayed that his jail sentence may be reduced to the
period already undergone.
4. Learned counsel for the State oppose the prayer stating that judgment of
conviction and order of sentence are on due appreciation on evidence available
on record, therefore, findings of conviction and sentence passed thereon needs
no interference in appeal, is liable to be dismissed.
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
under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC is found to be clear cogent and
consistent. The same is free from any material infirmity and anomaly. The
testimony of complainant Heeralal (PW-2) stands duly corroborated with First
Information Report (Ex.P-2) and MLC report (Ex.P-14) reported by Dr.
Kishore Kumar (PW-7). The testimony of complainant is also supported by
other prosecution witnesses available on record. Therefore, it cannot be inferred
that the learned trial Court has committed any error in recording conviction for
offence under Section 323/34 of IPC against the appellants. Therefore, the
findings of conviction as recorded by the learned trial Court is affirmed.
7. As regards the sentence, prayer made on behalf of appellants appears to
be reasonable. The incident occurred near about more than 11 years back. No
criminal antecedents are attributed to the appellants, they have remained in
custody for two days, therefore, the period of sentence deserves to be reduced
to the period already undergone.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed on the point of sentence as
mentioned herein above. The conviction of appellants is maintained. As regards
the sentence, the same is reduced to the period already undergone by them.
9. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds and personal bonds shall stand
discharged.
10. The record of the learned trial Court alongwith the copy of the judgement
be forthwith sent back to the learned trial Court for compliance and necessary
action.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
V. JUDGE
Amitabh
