Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babulal Patel And Ors. vs The State Of M.P. 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. 1988 of 2004
BETWEEN:-
1. BABULAL PATEL S/O RAMKISHAN PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 41 YEARS, DIST. PANNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. JAGATRAJ PATEL S/O RAMKISHAN PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 43 YEARS, VILLAGE KARAHIYA PS
DEVENDRA NAGAR DIST. PANNA (M.P)
3. RAMKISHAN PATEL S/O PYARE LAL PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 74 YEARS, VILLAGE KARAHIYA PS
DEVENDRA NAGAR DIST. PANNA (M.P)
4. INDRAPAL PATEL S/O RAM KISHAN PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, VILLAGE KARAHIYA PS
DEVENDRA NAGAR DIST. PANNA (M.P)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI SUDHAKAR PATEL - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. DEVENDRA NAGAR
DIST. PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIJAY PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER )
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction dated
31.10.2004 passed by First Additional Session Judge, Panna in S.T.
No.118/2002 whereby the appellant-Babulal has been convicted under Sections
326 and 323 of IPC and appellant-Jagatraj Patel, Ramkishan Patel and Indrapal
Patel were convicted under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for one and half year and fine of Rs.1000/- in default 6 months S.I., under
Section 326 of IPC and Section 323 of IPC imposed fine of Rs.500-500/- in
default one month S.I.
2. Learned counsel for appellant submits that during pendency of the
present appeal, appellant No.3 Ramkishan Patel has expired on 25.02.2008 and
consequently, prays for withdrawal of the appeal on behalf of Ramkishan Patel.
3. Prayer is allowed.
4. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn on behalf of Ramkishan Patel.
5 . The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During trial,
appellant No.1-Babu Lal and appellant No.2-Jagatraj Patel remained in custody
from 03.07.2002 to 29.08.2002. However, appellant No.4-Indrapal Patel
remained in custody from 16.09.2002 to 07.10.2002. He prayed for acquittal of
the appellant.
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 Session Judge has rightly convicted the appellant under
Sections 326 and 323 of IPC.
7. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of
record, it appears that on 30.06.2002, Rajbhan Patel lodged a report against the
appellant and two others at P.S. Devendra Nagar District-Panna registered as
Crime No.79/02 under Sections 307, 323 and 143 of IPC and after
investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Prosecution examined 8 witnesses. PW-1
(Rajbhan Patel), PW-2 (Rambagas), PW-5 (Rajaram), PW-6 (Kamlesh Bai) and
PW-7 (Santi Bai) narrated the incident and involvement of the appellants in the
crime whereas, PW-3 (Dr. P.N. Sharma) explained the injuries sustained by
Rambagas, Rajbhan, Kamlesh and Santi Bai. Nathu Singh and Rajesh Singh
examined as defence witnesses and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge after
considering the statement of witnesses by the judgment dated 30.10.2004
convicted the appellant-Babu Lal under Sections 326 and 323 of IPC and other
appellants under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced as stated hereinabove. After
considering the statements of the witnesses, it appears that the allegation against
Jagatram Patel and Indrapal Patel were not sufficient to found them guilty for
the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and consequently, their
conviction under Section 323 of IPC are set aside. Jagarram Patel and Indrapal
Patel are acquitted from the charge of Section 323 of IPC. The witnesses
narrated the incident and the medical evidence is also available on record and
the finding in respect of commission of offence by Babu Lal Patel for causing
grievous hurt is based on due appreciation of evidence and, therefore, I do not
find any reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the learned Session
Judge in respect of Babu Lal Patel. The conviction of Babu Lal Patel under
Section 323 and 326 of IPC are upheld.
8. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year
2002, the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the
appellants on record, the appellant remained in custody from 03.07.2002 to
29.07.2002, there is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Section
323 and 326 of IPC, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the
appellant-Babulal to the extent of the period which they have already undergone,
accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced. However, fine is enhanced for under
Section 326 of IPC from Rs.1000/- to Rs.5000/-. The appellant shall deposit
the enhanced amount of fine within a period of two months from today. The
appellant is on bail, his personal bonds and bail bonds be discharged.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
9 . Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the
judgment.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
Shub
