Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pramod Dahiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 29 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4060 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. PRAMOD DAHIYA S/O CHOTELAL, AGED ABOUT
23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR JHANDA
CHOWK CHANDMARI GHAMAPUR DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PANKAJ SHRIVAS S/O AJAY SHRIVAS, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O
SANTOSHI MATA ROAD CHANDMARI DISTRIT
JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SAGAR BALMIK S/O RAMESH BALMIK, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O
N E A R PANCHSIL SCHOOL CHANDMARI
GHAMAPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR M.P (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. DEEPU DAHIYA S/O SATYANARAYAN DAHIYA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
R/O BADI SANTOSHI MATA MANDIR LALMATI
P.S. GHAMAPUR DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. GLADWIN @ BANTI ISAYI S/O PITAR ISAI, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O
NEAR PANCHSIL SCHOOL CHANDMARI
GHAMAPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR M.P (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. PRAVEEN @ RAJA SHRIVS S/O AJAY SHRIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
R/O NEAR PANCHSIL SCHOOL CHANDMARI
GHAMAPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR M.P (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI R.N. DWIVEDI-ADVOCATE )
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETI TIWARI
Signing time: 1/2/2024
4:27:57 PM
2
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION GHAMAPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SHIKHA SINGH BAGHEL )
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGEMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge District Jabalpur in
S.T.No.7100767/2015 on 23.4.2022 whereby the appellants -Pankaj, Praveen,
Pramod, Deepu, Gladwin @ Bunty, Sagar and one Ajay have been convicted
under Section 147, 427, 452, 323/149 (three counts) of Indian Penal Code and
appellants Deepu, Gladwin, Sagar and one Ajay convicted under Section 148 of
the IPC also and sentenced as described in paragraph 55 of the judgment.
2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, co-
accused-Ajay has not preferred any appeal as he has already suffered the
sentences awarded by the Court. Similarly, the appellant Deepu, Gladwin @
Bunty have also completed the jail sentence and therefore, he prays for
withdrawal of the appeal on behalf of Deepu and Gladwin @ Bunty.
3. The prayer is allowed and the appeal filed by the Deepu and
Gladwin @ Bunty is permitted to be withdrawn. Therefore, their appeal is
dismissed as withdrawn.
4. Now, this appeal will be considered for appellants- Pankaj, Praveen,
Pramod and Sagar.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.During trial
appellant-Pramod remained in custody from 18.8.2015 to 6.1.2016=142 days
and Pankaj remained in custody from 1.9.2015 to 31.12.2015=128 days, Sagar
remained in custody from 1.9.2015 to 30.11.2015=91 days and Praveen from
26.10.2015 to 10.1.2016=77 days. . He prayed for acquittal of the appellants.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State
supported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved the
incident and the learned sessions Court has rightly convicted the appellants.
7. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of
record, it appears that FIR was lodged at Police Station Ghamapur, District-
Jabalpur on 17.8.2015 by Mukesh Kumar Dholpuri which was registered as
Crime No.804/2015 under Section 147, 148, 149 323, 307 and 452 of the IPC
and 3/5 of Exclusive Act against the appellants and Ajay and after investigation,
the charge sheet was filed against all of them. The prosecution has exmained 11
witnesses. However, the defense has examined three witnesses. P.W.1- Mukesh
Kumar Vilmik, PW 3-Usha Bai, PW 4-Ramabai supported the prosecution case
and narrated the incident and involvement of appellants in the offence. PW9-Dr.
Archana Grover explained the injuries sustained by the injured Mukesh, Rakesh
and Ramabai. Learned Sessions Judge after considering the statements of the
witnesses and record of the case by the judgment dated 23.4.2022 acquitted all
the accused persons from the offences punishable under Section 307 read with
149 of the IPC however convicted under Section 147, 148, 323/149 (three
counts), 427 and 452 of the IPC as stated herein above.
8. After examining the statements of the witnesses and record of the
case, I do not find any reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge as the same are based on due appreciation of
evidence and consequently the judgment of conviction and conviction of
appellants under Sections 147, 148, 427, 452 and 323/149 (three counts) are
upheld.
9. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year
2015, the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the
appellants on record, the appellants remained in custody as stated herein above
and there is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Sections 147, 148,
427, 452 and 323/149 (three counts) of Indian Penal Code, I deem it proper to
reduce the jail sentence of the appellants to the extent of the period which they
have already undergone and accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced. However,
fine is enhanced to Rs.1000/- for each appellants for each offence. The
appellants shall deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months
from today. The enhanced amount of fine shall be paid to the complainant as
compensation by the trial court. The appellants are on bail, their personal bonds
and bail bonds be discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
10. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the
judgment.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
P/-
