Madhya Pradesh High Court
Preetam Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 29 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5924 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
1. PREETAM SINGH S/O SHRI JAHAR SINGH
GURJAR, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
KARSHI R/O GRAM SUNVAI P.S DABRA DISTT.
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RANVEER SINGH S/O PREETAM SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
R/O GRAM SUNVAI P.S DABRA DISTT. GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI ARUN PATERIA- ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION DABRA DISTT. GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ATUL SHARMA- PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
1.This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 (2) of
Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10th October, 2017 passed by
the Special Judge (Atrocities), Gwalior, in Special Case No.4/2015 whereby
appellants have been convicted under Sections 323 & 325 or 325/34 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo 3 months imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and 1 year
rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- respectively with default
stipulation.
2.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not wish to
challenge the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offence. As regards
sentence, it is submitted by learned counsel that the appellants have already
suffered incarceration of 4 days and they have been facing agony of trial for the
last 9 years. Appellant No.1 was 62 years of age at the time of incident and now
he is more than 70 years old. Therefore, it is prayed that sentence of the
appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them while
enhancing the fine amount suitably.
3.Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment, but
he has no objection on deciding the appeal on the point of sentence.
4.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5.After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the
record, it is found that trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on
record and rightly convicted the appellants under Sections 323 & 325 or 325/34
of IPC, hence, conviction of the appellants under Section 323 & 325 or 325/34
of IPC needs no interference.
6.As regards sentence, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case
and evidence on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, ends of justice
would meet if while reducing the jail sentence of the appellants to the period
already undergone by them, fine amount under Section 325 or 325/34 of IPC is
enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of the
appellants under Sections 323 & 325 or 325/34 of IPC, jail sentence o f the
appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them and fine amount
under Section 325 or 325/34 of IPC is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-, which shall be
deposited by them within a period of two months from today, failing which the
appellants will have to suffer the sentence as awarded by the trial Court. The
fine amount already deposited by the appellants be adjusted against the
aforesaid amount of fine. The fine sentence under Section 323 of IPC is hereby
affirmed. The entire amount of fine deposited by the appellants be paid to the
complainant under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Ahmad
