Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mansharam vs The State Of M.P. on 27 June, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 27 th OF JUNE, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1038 of 1999
BETWEEN:-
1. MANSHARAM (DEAD)
2. SURPIYA S/O MANSHARAM, AGED ABOUT 34
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: LABOUR, R/O: GRAM
GAWLA, THANA CHAINPUR, DIST. KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI VIBHASH KHANDEKAR - ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS
APPOINTED THROUGH LEGAL AID)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. STATION HOUSE OFFICER THRU.
POLICE STATION CHAINPUR, DIST. KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI PRASHANT JAIN GWALIORY - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
From perusal of record, it appears that this appeal is pending since 1999
and nobody has marked appearance on behalf of appellants after 12/12/2013,
therefore, Shri Vibhash Khandekar - Advocate has been appointed to present
the appellants before this Court. His name is also included in the panel list of
High Court, Legal Aid Committee.
2. Secretary, High Court Legal Aid Committee is directed to formally
Signature Not Verified
appoint and pay the remuneration to the Shri Vibhash Khandekar as per rules.
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 28-06-2023
14:22:44
3. With the consent of both the parties, this appeal is heard finally.
4. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 374 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') against the impugned
judgment dated 29.06.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone
in Sessions Trial No.375/1995, whereby the appellant No.2 Surpiya has been
convicted for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced only with
fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stimulation of 3 months R.I.
5. Prosecution story is in brief are that on 13.10.1995, at about 7-8 AM,
at village Gawla, complainant Kamlabai was preparing food inside her house, at
that time, one Chhitu informed her that appellant No.1 Mansharam, appellant
No.2 Surpiya and co-accused Kharju are beating her husband Rakhdiya. When
complainant alongwith her daughter Banshibai reached there. They saw that
accused persons were beating her husband by means of wooden stick, due to
which Rakhdiya sustained various injuries over his head, left eye, abdomen, left
shoulder. His left frontal parietal bone was also fractured. Accused persons
have also attacked upon the complainant, due to which she has sustained
injuries over his back and right thigh. Banshibai has also sustained contusion on
right hand joint. After that Kamlabai lodged an FIR at P.S. Chainpur. MLC of
the victim persons has been conducted by the concerned Doctor.
6. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants and
other co-accused persons before the JMFC, Bikhangaon, who committed the
case to the Court of Sessions later on which was transferred to the 1st ASJ,
Khargone.
7. Trial Court has framed the charges under Section 307 and 323 of IPC
against all the accused persons. Appellants and other co-accused abjured their
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 28-06-2023
14:22:44
guilt and pleaded complete innocence.
8. The prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses, but no
witness has been examined by the appellants and other co-accused in their
defence.
9. The trial Court after considering the arguments advanced by both the
parties and considering the entire evidence available on record acquitting the co-
accused Kharju from all the charges. Present appellant has been acquitted from
the charges under Section 307 of IPC and Mansharam has also been acquitted
from the charge under Section 323 of IPC, but Surpiya has been convicted for
the offence under Section 323 of IPC and has been punished with fine of
Rs.1,000/-. Mansharam has been convicted for the offence under Section 307
of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. with usual default
stipulation.
10. During the pendency of this appeal appellant No.1 Mansharam has
been died on 12.09.2013, therefore, vide order dated 20.02.2023 this appeal
stands abated in respect of appellant No.1 Mansharam. Appellant No.2 Surpiya
has preferred this appeal on several grounds, but during the course of the
arguments counsel for the appellant did not press this appeal on merit. He did
not assail the finding part of the judgment. He confined his arguments only on
the quantum of sentence part. Appellant Surpiya is facing trial since 1995 and he
is an old person of 58 years of age and is not having any criminal past.
Therefore, his fine amount may be reduced.
11. Per contra, counsel for respondent/ State opposes the prayer and
prays for it rejection by submitting that trial Court has rightly convicted and
sentenced the appellant.
12. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and considered their
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 28-06-2023
14:22:44
arguments.
13. In view of the above, although the conviction has not been
challenged, but the evidence available on record also justifies the order of
conviction passed by the trial Court.
14. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, trial Court has
liberally punished the appellant only by the fine of Rs.1000/-, which is sufficient,
therefore, there is no need to reduce the fine amount of Rs.1000/-.
15. Having considered to the aforesaid, this appeal being devoid of merit
substance is hereby dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial Court in respect of appellant Surpiya is affirmed. The bail
bond and surety, if any, stands discharged.
16. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment alongwith the
record to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary action.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Anushree
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 28-06-2023
14:22:44
