Madhya Pradesh High Court
Antar Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 15 March, 2023
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 15 th OF MARCH, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 185 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
1. ANTAR SINGH S/O SARDAR, AGED ABOUT 35
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O
VILLAGE VALAOLI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KAMPOTER S/O HAZARI, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O JHUKRA P.S.
CHACHODA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PAPPU S/O HARI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O INDRA
COLONY KUMBHRAJ DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI S.K.TIWARI AND SHRI RAJMANI BANSAL - LEARNED COUNSEL
FOR THE APPELLANTS)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. INCHARGE PS CHACHODA
DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI B.M.SHRIVASTAVA - LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
This appeal coming on for FINAL HEARING this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
The present criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
by the appellants challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 01.03.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda, District
Signature Not Verified
Guna in ST No.279/2002, by which the appellants have been convicted under
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 3/16/2023
1:40:14 PM
Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 7
years RI with fine of Rs.500/- and they have further been convicted under
Section 341 of IPC and sentenced to 1 year simple imprisonment and also 1
month simple imprisonment for commission of offence under Section 506-B of
IPC with default stipulation. All the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
(2) Prosecution case in short is that on 18.07.2002 deceased Kanhaiyalal
while returning to his village at around 7:00 pm in the evening after completing
his duty, the present appellants along with one Jagdish were consuming liquor
outside the house of deceased. On seeing the deceased, they offered him to
drink. When the deceased refused to do so, on account of previous enmity, all
the appellants along with said Jagdish committed marpeet with him by means of
Lathi, as a result of which the deceased fell down on the ground and he also
sustained injuries on his various parts of body including stomach. The villagers
including one Shankarlal have witnessed the incident. The deceased lodged the
report on the next day vide Exhibit P4 on the basis of which offence under
Sections 341, 353 and 506-B of IPC was registered. The deceased died on
23.07.2002 during treatment. As per opinion of the doctor, the decease died
due to cardio respiratory failure. Statements of the witnesses were recorded.
The appellants were arrested. After completion of investigation and other
formalities, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court from where the
case was committed to the Sessions Court for its trial. The learned trial Court
after appreciating the evidence as well as documents available on record found
the appellants guilty for commission of aforesaid offence and sentenced them
accordingly, as stated above.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 3/16/2023
1:40:14 PM
(3) During the course of argument, it is submitted by learned counsel for
the appellants that they do not challenge the finding of conviction, but since the
occurrence has taken place as back as in 2002 due to sudden altercation in
regard to offering liquor to the deceased, not otherwise and there is no intention
or premediation of appellants- accused for committing the alleged offence, they
have already served in custody a period of near about 1 year out of total jail
sentence awarded by the trial Court, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence
awarded to appellants be reduced from seven years to two years with
enhancement of fine amount for offence under Section 304 Part II read with
Section 34 of IPC.
(4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submitted that there is neither
any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded by the trial Court to the
appellants nor any compassion or sympathy is called for.
(5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned
judgment as well as record.
(6) It is not disputed that the occurrence relates to the year 2002 and the
appellants have so far served near about a period of one year out of jail
sentence and so also, suffered agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus,
looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in
view the fact that offence in question was committed nearly 21 years back and
the incident in question had taken place due to sudden altercation in regard to
offering liquor to the deceased, not otherwise and there is no intention or pre-
mediation of the appellants for committing the alleged offence, it will be just and
proper if the sentence of maximum 7 years as awarded by trial Court for
Signature Not Verified
offence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of IPC is reduced to 2
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 3/16/2023
1:40:14 PM
years with enhancement of fine amount to the tune of Rs.10,000/-
(7) Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed. While
maintaining the conviction of appellants, the sentence of seven years RI
awarded for offence under Section 304 II read with Section 34 of IPC is
hereby reduced to two years with enhancement of fine amount from Rs.500/- to
Rs.10,000/- Two months time from the date of this judgment is hereby granted
to the appellants to deposit the aforesaid enhanced fine amount and the same
shall be adjusted with the fine amount if so deposited by the appellants before
the trial Court and the same shall be paid to legal heirs of deceased by way of
compensation. On failure of deposit of aforesaid enhanced amount, the
appellants shall further undergo 3 months RI as awarded by the trial Court.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE
MKB
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 3/16/2023
1:40:14 PM
