Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rameshwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 February, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 10th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 649 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
RAMESHWAR S/O HAJARILAL, AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE JAMUNIYA,
1.
P.S. PIPALRAWA, DISTT. DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
RAJNEESH S/O RAMESHWAR, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGARICULTURIST VILL. JAMUNIYA ,P.S.
2.
PIPALWARA,DISTT. DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
RAJENDRA S/O RAMESHWAR, AGED
ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
3. AGARICUTURIST VILL,. JAMUNIYA,P.S.
PIPALRAWA,DISTT. DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI VIVEK SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THRU. P.S. AVANTIPUR
BADODIYA, DISTT. SHAJAPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VALMIK SAKARGAY GA )
______________________________________________________________
This appeal coming on for order this day, the court passed
the following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL N
MAHANAG
Signing time: 2/11/2023
4:16:01 PM
2
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellants under section
374 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short " Cr.P.C ) against the
impugned judgment dated 12/05/2015 passed by 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Sujalpur, District- Shajapur in Sessions Trial Case
no. 166/2014 whereby the appellants have been convicted under
sections 323/34, 506 Part-II and 435/34 of the Indian Penal Code
(in short"the IPC") and sentenced to undergo six months R.I with
fine of Rs. 1,000/-,, two years R.I with fine of Rs. 2000/- and seven
years R.I with fine of Rs. 10,000/- respectively with usual default
stipulation.
2. Brief fact of the case is that complainant Nirmalabai,
on the death of her father, received share in ancestral property as
farm land situated at village - Deoli. On 18/05/2014, at the evening
time, the complainant called for the tractor of one Brijmohan for
cultivating the land, at that time, the appellants / accused came and
started abusing the complainant and also threatened to stop the
tractor. Thereafter, the appellants started beating with stick and also
set ablaze the tractor, due to which the tractor was completely burn
out. The complainant lodged FIR at PS-Avantipur Badodiya,
District - Shajapur. During investigation, the complainant's MLC
was conducted by Dr. Ashish Dubey (PW-8) and as per the MLC
report, the complainant sustained certain injuries over right
shoulder, back, right hip, middle of the back, left arm, left palm and
right knee. Investigating Officer prepared damage panchanama of
burn tractor.
3. After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was
filed against the appellants before the JMFC, Sujalpur who
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL N
MAHANAG
Signing time: 2/11/2023
4:16:01 PM
committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Shajapur, which was
later on transferred to the 1st ASJ, Sujalpur, District- Shajapur for
trial The appellants abjured their guilt and took the plea that they
have been falsely implicated in the offence. The prosecution
examined as many as nine witnesses, while the defence examined
two witnesses.
4. The trial Court, after considering the submissions
advanced by both the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence
available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as
mentioned hereinabove. Being aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction and sentence, the appellants preferred present appeal
before this Court.
5 During pendency of this appeal, joint interim
application for compromise under section 320(2) of Cr.P.C has been
filed by both the parties. Factim of compromise has been duly
verified by Principal Registrar and as per the report, both the parties
have willfully, without any fear or any coercion, entered into said
compromise. Offence under sections 323 and 506 Part-II of IPC are
compoundable offence with the permission of the Court, therefore,
the petition for compromise has been allowed and on the basis of
the compromise, the appellants are acquitted from the charge under
sections 323 and 506 Part-II of IPC.
6. Present appellants have preferred the instant appeal on
several grounds, but during the course of the arguments, learned
counsel for the appellants did not assail the conviction of the
appellants under section 435/34 of IPC on merit. He do not assail
the finding part of the judgment. He confines his argument only to
the quantum of sentence and his only prayer is that the jail
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL N
MAHANAG
Signing time: 2/11/2023
4:16:01 PM
sentence/imprisonment of the appellants be reduced to the period
already undergone as the appellants has already suffered more than
23 days jail imprisonment. They are facing criminal proceedings
since 2014 and during trial as well as pendency of this appeal, they
have co-operated, therefore, it is prayed that their jail sentence may
be reduced to the period already undergone.
7 Per-contra, learned GA for the respondent/State has
opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants by
submitting that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced
the appellants under section 435/34 of IPC, therefore, no
interference is required.
8 Heard learned counsel for both the parties, as also
considered their arguments.
9 In view of the submissions, although the conviction
has not been challenged, but perusal of the evidence available on
record also justifies the judgment passed by the trial Court.
10 So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, the
submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants appears to
be just and proper. The appellants remained in jail from 12/05/2015
to 05/06/2015, which is about 25 days, It is noteworthy that the
offence under section 435/34 of IPC is non-compoundable,
therefore, the compromise cannot be recorded, but at the same time,
it is also well settled law that while awarding the sentence, factum
of compromise may be taken into consideration, therefore, it would
be appropriate to reduce their jail sentence to the period already
undergone.
11 Having regard to the aforesaid, present appeal is partly
allowed by maintaining the conviction, but reducing the jail
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL N
MAHANAG
Signing time: 2/11/2023
4:16:01 PM
sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants. The
appellants are on bail; their surety bonds and bail bonds are
discharged. The order regarding disposal of the property as
pronounced by the trial Court, is confirmed.
12 Present Criminal Appeal stands disposed of
accordingly.
13 A copy of this judgment alongwith the record of the
trial Court be sent back to the concerned Court for information and
necessary compliance.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
amol
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL N
MAHANAG
Signing time: 2/11/2023
4:16:01 PM
