Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ishwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 July, 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 25th OF JULY, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11708 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
ISHWAR S/O SHRI TULSIRAM CHAMAR,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
1. AGRICULTURIST GRAM KELUKHEDA,
DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
KAMAL S/O TULSIRAM CHMAR, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
2. AGRICULTURE GRAM KELUKHEDA,
DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
TULSIRAM S/O BAGDIRAM CHMAR,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
3.
AGRICULTURE GRAM KELUKHEDA,
DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
( BY SHRI MAYANK SONI- ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROGH POLICE
STATION KELUKHEDA, DISTRICT RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( STATE BY SHRI VISHAL PANWAR PL )
COMPLAINANT BY SHRI VIKRAM MALVIYA
-ADVOCATE )
______________________________________________________________
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
JUDGMENT
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 26-07-2023
10:51:25
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 17/10/2022 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Alot District - Ratlam in Sessions Trial Case no.
03/2016, whereby the appellants have been convicted under
sections 326 and 323/34 of IPC of the Indian Penal Code (in
short"the IPC") and sentenced to undergo ten years RI with fine of
Rs. 1000/- and six months R.I with fine of Rs. 500/- ( 6 counts)
with usual default stipulation. .
2/ Brief facts of the case are that on 19/03/2016,
complainant Bherulal lodged FIR at police station- Alot, District-
Ratlam by stating that on 18/03/2016, some dispute took place
between Lalu and Jagdish about cutting Khakra. On the same day,
at about 5.00 pm, Jagdish told to Ishwarlal to load garlic sacks in
truck. He denied and beat him with kicks and fists. Then Jagdish
said to Ishwarlal that he would see him later. Thereafter, at about
9.30 pm, all the three accused persons/appellants came at the filed
of the complainant and started abusing in filthy language and
beating by using darata, due to which, complainant Bherulal,
Jagdish, Kaniram, Rekhabai, Yashodabai and Sarodabai sustained
various injuries. Jagdish sustained injuries on his head, hands and
legs, due to which, he lost his vision for long time. Kaniram also
sustained fracture, due to injuries on his leg.. Accordingly, the
aforementioned offence was registered. MLC of the victim persons
was also conducted by doctor. Weapon used in the weapon was also
seized from the possession of present appellants.
3/ After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was
filed against the appellant before the JMFC, Alot who committed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 26-07-2023
10:51:25
the case to the Sessions and District Judge which was transferred to
ASJ, Alot. The trial Court framed the charges under section 394,
323/34 9 6counts), 326/34 and 506-II of IPC against the appellants.
The appellants abjured their guilt and took the plea that he has been
falsely implicated in the offence and prayed for trial, The appellants
pleaded their innocence and false implication in the matter in their
statement recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C.
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/ Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants do not want to challenge the finding of conviction
recorded by the trial Court. He further submits that the complainant
has filed an applications under Section 320 and 320(2) of Cr.P.C.
for granting the permission to compound the offence and
compromise with the accused persons. The appellants have already
undergone sufficient jail sentence, the fine amount has already been
deposited and have no previous criminal conduct and, therefore the
learned counsel for the appellants prays for reduction of jail
sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants.
6/ Moreover, before the Principal Registrar also
appellants as well as complainant both have stated the same facts
and the parties have entered into compromise. Hence in the light of
judgments in the case of Jetha Ram Vs. State of
Rajasthan[(2006) 9 SCC 255], Ashok & Others Vs. State of M.P.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 26-07-2023
10:51:25
[2009(2) JLJ 115], Raoji Vs. State of M.P. [2019(II) MPWN 91],
Sukhdev Vs. State of M.P. [2020(II) MPWN 62] and in the case
of Kudau Sahu Vs. State of M.P.[2014(I) MPWN 33], the appeal
may be disposed of compounding the offence.
7/ Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State,
while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence submits that the judgment was passed by the Trial Court
after proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Same is
well reasoned establishing the guilt of the appellants beyond
reasonable doubt. Therefore, confirming the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, the appeal filed by the appellants
may be dismissed as injuries caused to the complainant are serious
in nature .
8/ Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the record.
9/ During the pendency of this appeal, the victim persons
Jagdish, Kaniram, Rekhabai, Yashodabai and Sarodabai and the
appellants have filed a compromise application bearing I.A. No.
9811/2023 u/S 320 and 320(2) of Cr.P.C. alongwith an application
bearing I.A. No.6884/2023 filed by the victim persons u/S 320(2)
of Cr.P.C. for grant of permission to compromise the offences
alleged against the appellants and to acquit them from the charges
framed against them. It is alleged that victim Bherulal has died
during pendency of the trial and death certificate to that effect has
also been produced. LRs of the deceased Bherulal is the son
Jagdish, who also sustained injuries in the alleged incident.
10/ Since the offences punishable u/S 323/34 of IPC is
compoundable in nature and all the victim persons along with the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 26-07-2023
10:51:25
deceased/victim Bherulal have compromised the matter and the
factum of the compromise has been verified by the Principal
Registrar of this court, who after recording the statements of the
complainant on 27/06/2023 has submitted his report that all the
victim persons have entered into the compromise voluntarily and
parties have resolved their disputes amicably, therefore both the
above applications bearing I.A.No.9811/2023 and I.A. No.6884/
2023 are allowed with respect to offences punishable u/S 323/234
of IPC(6 counts). Hence, the appellants are acquitted from the
charges u/S 323/34 of IPC (6 counts),
11/ As the offences punishable u/S 326/34 of IPC are non-
compoundable, therefore, both the above applications bearing
I.A.No.9811/2023 and I.A. No.6884/2023 are rejected with respect
to the offences u/S 326/34 of IPC.
12/ During trial, appellant Ishwar remained in custody
from 19/03/2016 to 28/04/2016 in toral 40 days. Appellant Kamal
and Tulsiram remained in custody from 18/04/2016 to 28/04/2016
in total 10 days and since 17/10/2022 i.e. the date of impugned
judgment, they are continuously in jail till now.
13/ It is noteworthy that the offence under sections 326
and 326/34 of IPCis non-compoundable, therefore, the compromise
cannot be recorded, but at the same time, it is well settled that while
awarding sentence, factum of compromise may be taken into
consideration. It has also been stated that the appellants have
remained in custody for about 10 months and according the medical
report, the injuries caused to the victim/complainant are not
dangerous to the life.
14/ Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 26-07-2023
10:51:25
I am of the considered view that ends of justice will be met, if the
sentence of imprisonment awarded against the appellants by the
trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone.
15/ Accordingly, present appeal is allowed in part by
affirming the conviction under sections 326 and 326 read with
section 34 of IPC and the sentence of imprisonment against the
appellants is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by
them.
16/ The appellants are in jail; they be released from jail, if
not required in any other offence.
17/ The order of disposal of the property as pronounced by
the trial Court is also affirmed
18/ Let a copy of this order along with the records of the
trial Court be sent back to the concerned trial Court for due
compliance.
CC as per rule
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
amol
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 26-07-2023
10:51:25
