Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arjun 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. 738 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
1. ARJUN S/O RAM SINGH MALVIYA, AGED ABOUT
19 YEARS, R/O DESHWALI MOHALLA
RAHATGAON, P.S. RAHATGAON, DISTT. HARDA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VISHAL @ VIKKI, S/O AKHILESH RAGHORE, AGED
ABOUT 18 YEARS, R/O MASJID MOHALLA,
RAHATGAON, P.S. RAHATGAON, DISTT. HARDA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SONU @ SOHAN S/O MANGILAL VISHWAKARMA,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, R/O GANESH CHOWK,
RAHATGAON, P.S. RAHATGAON, DISTT. HARDA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI SAMAR SINGH RAJPUT - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH P.S.
RAHATGAON/AJK HARDA, DISTT. HARDA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
(BY SHRI RAVINDRA RAJPUT - 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
21/2/2014 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Harda in Special Case no.2/2012,
whereby appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 294 of the IPC and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC (on three
counts) each and have been sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months and RI for 3
months each.
2. The incident relating to hurling filthy abuses and marpeet was reported to
the Police Station Rahatgaon (AJK), District Harda, where FIR (Ex.P/1) was
registered on Crime No. 194/2011 for the offence under Sections 294, 323, 336
and 506/34 of the IPC and also Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. The
investigation was set in motion and on its completion, charge sheet was filed.
3. 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.
4. 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.
He has committed serious error of fact and law in recording the findings of
conviction. The appellants are entitled for acquittal. In alternative limb of prayer,
counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants remained in jail from
20/10/2011 to 21/10/2011 i.e. 2 days as apparent from para 31 of the impugned
judgment. Incident occurred more than 12 years back. The appellants have no
criminal antecedents, therefore, he prayed that their jail sentence may be
reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount.
5. 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. The appeal is devoid on merits. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The evidence adduced in support of the allegation with regard to offence
u/s. 294 and 323/34 of the IPC is found to be clear, cogent and consistent. The
same is free from any material infirmity and anomaly. The testimony of
complainant Sagar Kalosiya (PW/1) stands duly corroborated with first
information report (Ex.P/1) and statements of the other witnesses. The medical
evidence adduced by Dr. G.S. Kushwah (PW/7), who prepared MLC report of
the injured persons (Ex.P/10 to Ex.P/13) corroborates the prosecution case,
therefore, it cannot be inferred that the learned trial Court has committed any
error in recording conviction for offence u/s. 294 and 323/34 of the IPC against
the appellants. Therefore, the finding of the conviction for the abovementioned
offence is affirmed.
8. As regards the sentence, the prayer made on behalf of the appellants
appears to be reasonable. The incident took place near about 13 years back.
Criminal antecedents have not been brought on record against the appellants.
As apparent from para 31 of the impugned judgment, the appellants have
remained in custody from 20/10/2011 to 21/10/2011 i.e. for 2 days. Therefore,
the period of sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone.
The fine amount of Rs.1000/- is imposed on each of the appellant for the
offence under Section 323/34 of the IPC (on three counts) i.e. Rs.3000/- is to
be deposited by each appellant. Appellants will have to deposit the 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 SI for one month.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed on the point of sentence as
mentioned herein above. The conviction of the appellants is maintained. As
regards the sentence, the same is reduced to the period already undergone. The
appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds and personal bonds stand discharged.
10. 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/-
