Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Lodhi 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. 3329 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. RAJESH LODHI S/O IMRAT LODHI, AGED ABOUT
34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O
GRAM CHARODA, P.S. AND TEHSIL MALTHON,
DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAJA SAHAB S/O IMRAT LODHI, AGED ABOUT 32
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O GRAM
CHARODA, P.S. AND TEHSIL MALTHON, DISTT.
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. IMRAT S/O PYARELAL LODHI, AGED ABOUT 57
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O GRAM
CHARODA, P.S. AND TEHSIL MALTHON, DISTT.
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. RAJA BHAIYA S/O MEHTAB LODHI, AGED ABOUT
34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O
GRAM CHARODA, P.S. AND TEHSIL MALTHON,
DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. MEHTAB S/O PYARELAL LODHI, AGED ABOUT 52
YEARS, R/O GRAM CHARODA, P.S. AND TEHSIL
MALTHON, DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI AMIT JAIN - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. POLICE
STATION MALTHON, DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI NISHANT YADAV - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRIYANKA
PITHAWE
Signing time: 12/30/2023
11:57:30 AM
2
following:
JUDGMENT
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 IInd A.S.J. Khurai, District Sagar in S.T. No.3900405/16
on 21.02.2019 whereby all the appellants have been convicted under Section
324/34 (3 counts) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year R.I.
and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to further undergo R.I. one month for each
count and convicted appellants Rajesh Lodhi and Raja Bhaiya under Section
325/34 and sentenced to undergo three years R.I. and fine of Rs.3000/- each
and in default, to further undergo R.I. for three months.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial,
the appellant Rajesh Lodhi remained in custody for 1 year 4 months and 06
days, appellant Raja Saheb Lodhi remained in custody for 01 month 13 days,
appellant Imrat Lodhi remained in custody for 01 month 13 days, appellant
Rajabhaiya Lodhi remained in custody for 01 month 11 days, appellant Mehtab
Lodhi remained in custody for 01 month 11 days. He prayed for acquittal of the
appellants.
3 . 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
under Sections 325/34 and 324/34 of Indian Penal Code.
4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of
record, it appears that the FIR was lodged by Sultan Singh at Police Station
Malthon, District Sagar against the appellants on 31.03.2016 registered as Crime
No.52/16 under Sections 323, 294, 506 (II), 307, 325, 34 of Indian Penal Code
and during investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet. The prosecution
examined 13 witnesses in support of their case. PW-1 Krishna Bai, PW-2 Raja
Bhaiya, PW-3 Rampravesh and PW-5 Janak Singh supported the prosecution
case and narrated the incident and involvement of the appellants. PW-12 Dr.
Rohit Pant explained the injuries sustained by Ramkesh, Rampravesh, Raja
Bhaiya and Janak Singh. According to the X-ray report, the victim Raja Bhaiya
sustained fracture in little finger of right hand. The learned Additional Sessions
Judge, after considering the statement of the witnesses and material available on
record, by judgment dated 21.02.2019, convicted the appellants under Sections
324/34 (3 counts) and 325/34 and sentenced as stated herein above. After
examining the statement of the witnesses and other material available on record,
I do not find any reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge. The findings recorded by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge appears to be based on due appreciation of evidence and
therefore, the judgment of conviction under Sections 324/34 and 325 are hereby
upheld.
5. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year
2016, the appellants remained in custody for considerable period and the
prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellants on
record. There is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Section 325
or 324 of Indian Penal Code, and the incident happened all of a sudden, 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 from Rs.3000-3000/- to Rs.6000-6000/-
under Section 325 and Rs.1000-1000-1000/- to Rs.2000-2000-2000/- under
Section 324/34 for each appellant. The fine amount be paid to the victims Janak
Singh, Ramkesh, Rampravesh equally under Section 357 as compensation. The
appellants shall deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months
from today. The appellants are on bail, their personal bonds and bail bonds be
discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
5. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the
judgment.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
Priya.P
