Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Ahirwar 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 DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 29 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3228 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
1. DEEPAK AHIRWAR S/O MUNNALAL AHIRWAR,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, JAWAHAR WARD BINA
P.S.BINA DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MEERABAI W/O DEEPAK AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT
25 YEARS, JAWAHAR WARD BINA P.S.BINA DISTT.
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MR. AMIT JAIN - ADVOCATE) .
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH P.S.BINA DISTT.
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY - PANEL LAWYER )
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred
against a judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.11.2015
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bina, District-Sagar (M.P.) in S.T.
No.338/2013 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 325
read with 34 (on two counts) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 1 year each on each count with fine of Rs.500/- each on each
count with default stipulations.
2. Prosecution case in nutshell is that on 28.04.2013 at about 05:45 am,
complainant Vatibai was cleaning her home and her daughter Nandani
connecting motor pump in water supply line on that the appellants with other
co-accused persons came there and started abusing the complainant and when
she objected them to abuse then, they assaulted the victim with sword and an
iron rod and also assaulted her daughter with sticks and an iron rod as a result,
they got injured. The complainant lodged an F.I.R at Police Station-Bina,
District-Sagar and on that basis Police Station-Bina registered Crime
No.245/2013 for an offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 294, 506, 34,
326 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant and injured person were
medically examined. The accused/appellants were arrested. After completion of
investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court.
3. Trial Court framed charges against the appellants under Section 326
read with 34 (on two counts) of the Indian Penal Code and read over to them
who abjured their guilt and prayed for trial.
4. The trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing both the
parties convicted and sentenced them under Section 325 read with 34 (on two
counts).
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the case was
registered on 28.04.2013 and appeal is pending since 2015. He has further
submitted that he has expressly gave up his challenge to the findings of the
Court below so far as the conviction of the appellants is concerned. In other
words, the learned counsel for the appellants accepted the finding of conviction
passed against the appellants, however, he challenged the quantum of
punishment (one year R.I on two counts) alone, therefore, he prayed that the jail
sentence of the appellants be reduced suitably.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that after
appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the trial Court has
rightly found guilty the appellants for the aforesaid offence, therefore, no
grounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellants
hence, he prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
7. Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and
on perusal of the impugned judgment and other material on record, since
counsel for the appellants has not pressed upon the conviction of the
appellants, therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Section 325 read
with 34 (on two counts) of the Indian Penal Code is hereby affirmed.
8. So far as sentence is concerned, the incident took place 10 years ago
and in the considered view of this Court, no fruitful purpose is going to be
served by sending the appellants to jail after about 10 years of the incident.
9. Consequently, appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the
appellants recorded by the trial Court under Section 325 read with 34 (on two
counts) of the Indian Penal Code is hereby affirmed. The jail sentence of the
appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them and fine amount
imposed on the appellants is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/- on each
count for each of the appellants. Thus, each of the appellants shall pay fine
amount of Rs.10,000/- adjusting the previous deposited fine amount.
10. The appellants are directed to deposit the fine amount before the
concerned trial Court within 90 days from today. If the aforesaid fine amount is
not deposited within the stipulated time period, then the appellants shall undergo
simple imprisonment of four months on each counts. The appellants are on bail,
their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged subject to deposit of
aforesaid fine amount.
11. In this case, there are two injured persons namely Vatibai and
Nandini and on fine being deposited, the trial Court shall pay Rs.3,000/- to each
of the injured persons as compensation.
12. The order of the trial Court regarding the seized property is
maintained.
13. The original record be kept in the connected matter.
14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below for information
and necessary compliance.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
julie
