Vikramsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 2230 MP

                                                      1
                            IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT INDORE
                                                   BEFORE
                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                                                      &
                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
                                           ON THE 8 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                           CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 96 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    VIKRAMSINGH S/O MANGUSINGH CHOUHAN,
                                 AGED    ABOUT    36   YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                 AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE DEOLI, JHUTAWAS,
                                 TEHSIL MAHIDPUR DIST. UJJAIN (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    BHARATSINGH S/O MANGUSINGH CHOUHAN,
                                 AGED    ABOUT    54  YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                 AGRICULTURE R/O VILL. JHUTAWAD TEHSIL
                                 MAHIDPUR    DISTRICT  UJJAIN   (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                            .....APPELLANT
                           (SHRI MEHUL VERMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT.)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
                                 HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
                                 MAHIDPUR ROAD, DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    SHYAMSINGH S/O DULESINGH SONDHIYA, AGED
                                 ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
                                 R/O VILL. DEOLI TEHSIL MAHIDPUR DISTRICT
                                 UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    DILIPSINGH S/O LALSINGH SONDHIYA, AGED
                                 ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
                                 R/O VILL. DEOLI TEHSIL MAHIDPUR DISTRICT
                                 UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    NANSINGH S/O AMARSINGH SONDHIYA, AGED
                                 ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
                                 R/O VILL. DEOLI TEHSIL MAHIDPUR DISTRICT
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 09-02-2023
16:08:08
                                                         2
                                  UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.     ARJUNSINGH S/O DULESINGH SONDHIYA, AGED
                                  ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
                                  R/O VILL. DEOLI TEHSIL MAHIDPUR DISTRICT
                                  UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           6.     PRADHANSINGH S/O MANGUSINGH SONDHIYA,
                                  AGED    ABOUT    23  YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                  AGRICULTURE R/O VILL. DEOLI TEHSIL
                                  MAHIDPUR    DISTRICT  UJJAIN   (MADHYA
                                  PRADESH)

                           7.     BHERUSINGH S/O DULESINGH SONDHIYA, AGED
                                  ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
                                  R/O VILL. DEOLI TEHSIL MAHIDPUR DISTRICT
                                  UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                           ( SHRI BHASKAR AGRAWAL, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
                           RESPONDENT/STATE.)

                                  Th is appeal coming on for orders this day, JUSTICE SUSHRUT
                           ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI passed the following:
                                                               ORDER

This appeal under section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 has been filed by the complainant being aggrieved by the judgment and conviction dated 30.09.2022 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur, District- Ujjain in S.T. No.30/2021 at crime no.77/2021 at Police Station-Mahidpur Road for the offence punishable under section 307, 325, 324, 341, 504, 323/34 of the IPC.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has awarded lesser sentence to the respondent nos.2 to 7 therefore, the present appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of jail sentence.

On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State opposes the prayer by submitting that this appeal for enhancement of sentence is not maintainable as per Section 372 of Cr.P.C., 1973 which is reproduced Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 09-02-2023 16:08:08

below:-

" 372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided. No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code by any other law for the time being in force:

1 [Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.] Admittedly, in the present case, the conviction as per the Proviso to the Section 372 of Cr.P.C. the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation only. In the present case, the conviction is based on the same offence for which the respondents were charged therefore, this appeal is not maintainable. This Court finds force in the submissions of the learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. In view of the Proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. this appeal is not maintainable and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.

                                  (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)                        (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
                                           JUDGE                                        JUDGE
                           ajit




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 09-02-2023
16:08:08