Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkumar 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 PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 29 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1082 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
RAJKUMAR S/O TIKARAM KIRAR, AGED ABOUT 40
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILL. JATARNA P.S.
CHAND TEH. AND DIST. CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI S.K. JAISWAL - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S. P.S.
CHOURAI DIST. CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. PAITU DEHARIYA S/O DAULAT DEHARIYA, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE JATAMA
P.S.CHAND TEHSIL AND DISTT CHHINDWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DINESH PATEL - DY. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against
the judgment of conviction dated 20.01.2020 passed by the Learned Special
Judge, Chhidwara in S.T.No.200075/2013, whereby learned Judge found the
appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 323 of the IPC read
with section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act and directed to undergo RI for three
month months with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,
Crime No.164/2012 was registered against the appellant at Police Station
Chand, District Chhindwara for commission of offence punishable under
Sections 294, 323 read with section 34 and 506 (Part-II) of the IPC. After
completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent
Court.
3. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and
appreciating the evidence led by parties, learned trial Court has acquitted the
appellant from the offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506(Part-II) of
IPC and under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act and found appellant guilty
for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and
sentenced him as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the impugned
judgment, the appellants have preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant expressly gave up his challenge to
the findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellant is
concerned. In other words, learned counsel for the appellant accepted the
finding of conviction passed against the appellant, however, he has challenged
the quantum of punishment alone. It is submitted that the appellant is the only
earning person in his family, it is the first offender and counsel assures that he
will not involve in such criminal activities in future. Learned counsel for the
appellant further submits that this is the first offender and there is no criminal
past of the appellants. He is facing trial since 2018 and the appeal is pending
before the High Court since 2020. Therefore, it has been prayed that the
appellants be punished with fine only.
5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has submitted that after
appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Court below have
rightly found the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offence, hence, he prayed
for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire
record of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal in part upon finding some
force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.
7. Though the appellant has not made any attempt to assail the finding of
his conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether the
findings of the Court below of conviction is legally sustainable or not, I perused
the record and especially therein having so perused, I am satisfied that no case
is made out to interfere in the findings of the Court below on merits. From the
perusal of the record, it reveals that the findings of the trial Court is based upon
proper appreciation of oral and document evidence, therefore, upheld the
findings of conviction under Section 323 of the IPC recorded by the trial
Court.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants,
however, looking to the facts that the incident is of the year 2013, the
prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellant on
record. There is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Section 323
of the IPC, I deem it proper to modify the sentence to the appellant under
Section 323 of the IPC till rising of the Court and fine of Rs.1,000/-. The
amount of fine has already been deposited by the appellant. The appellant will
surrender before the trial Court to undergo the sentence till rising of the Court
and deposit the fine amount within a period of 45 days. The personal bond and
bail bond be discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
9. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal appeal stands
partly allowed and disposed of.
10. Let a copy of this order alongwith record be sent to the court below
for information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
V. JUDGE
sh
