Raju Alias Vijay Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 7024 MP

                                                   1
               IN         THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                       AT INDORE
                                            BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                        ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2023
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4777 of 2023

              BETWEEN:-
              RAJU ALIAS VIJAY KUMAR S/O SHANTILAL JAIN, AGED
              ABOUT 43 YEARS,
              OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
              R/O: VILLAGE MAKANI, TEHSIL BADNAVAR, DISTRICT
              DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....APPELLANT
              (BY SHRI VIVEK SINGH - ADVOCATE)

              AND
              THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
              STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
              KANVAN, DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                               .....RESPONDENT
              (BY SHRI D.G. MISHRA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
              (SHRI IMRAN KHAN - ADVOCATE FOR THE COMPLAINANT)

                      This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
             following:

                      Heard on admission.
                      The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
                      With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally.
                                                    ORDER

1/ Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment dated 24.3.2023 passed by the Addl. Sessions Signature NotJudge, Verified Badnawar, District Dhar in S.T. No.49/2019, whereby appellant has been Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER convicted for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to 7 years Signing time: 02-May-23 10:30:28 AM

R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/-, with usual default stipulation.

2/ The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 7.11.2019 the complainant Santosh filed an complaint against the appellant alleging that on 7.11.2019 in the morning at around 9.30 a.m. he arrived to his showroom in his car, where he found that a truck is parked in front of his showroom. When the complainant asked to the truck driver to move his vehicle, the appellant came there from his shop and started abusing the complainant and when the complainant told him to stop abusing him, the appellant attacked him in his eyes with a sharp object resulting bleeding from his eyes and thereafter the appellant threatened the complainant that if he ever tried to move the parked vehicle in front of his shop,

he will kill him. Being aggrieved by such action of the appellant, on 7.11.2019 at 10.50 a.m. the complainant lodged an FIR against the appellant at P.S. Kanvan under Section 323, 294, 506 of IPC in Crime No.398/2019. Thereafter, after completion of investigation Section 326 of IPC was further added by the investigating officer.

3/ After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the JMFC Badnawar, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Dhar, which was later on transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Badnawar, District Dhar. After completion of the trial, trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned herein-above. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, appellant has preferred this appeal.

4/ Before this Court appellant as well as complainant/victim Santosh both have filed a joint compromise application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C.

5/ This Court vide order dated 19.4.2023 has directed both the parties to Signature Not Verified remain personally present before the Principal Registrar/Registrar of this Court Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 02-May-23 10:30:28 AM on 24.4.2023 for verification of factum of compromise.

6/ Both the parties were remain present before the Principal Registrar of this Court and the verification report submitted by the Principal Registrar indicates that the matter has been amicably settled between both the parties and they have entered into the compromise without any undue influence, force, depression or coercion and although the offence under Section 326 of IPC is a non compoundable offence, therefore, compromise application cannot be accepted.

7/ The appellant has preferred the present appeal on several grounds, but during the course of the argument learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant did not press this appeal on merit. He did not assail the finding part of the judgment. He has confined his argument only to the quantum of sentence. His only prayer is that the matter has been amicably settled between both the parties. During the trial appellant was remained in custody since 3.12.2019 to 5.12.2019 for 3 days and thereafter since 24.3.2023 i.e. date of the judgment of trial Court, appellant is continuously in custody and he has already suffered jail incarceration for more than one month. Appellant is a 45 years old person and he is facing trial since 2019. During the trial as well as during pendency of this appeal he has cooperated to the law. He is not having any criminal past. Therefore, his jail sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

8/ Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view

that the ends of justice will be meet in case if the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

9/ Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part by affirming the conviction under Section 326 of IPC and jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER period already undergone by him. The fine amount imposed by the trial Court is Signing time: 02-May-23 10:30:28 AM

enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. On depositing the fine amount, appellant be released from jail if he is not required in any other case.

10/ The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by the trial Court is also affirmed.

11/ Let a copy of this order along with the record of the trial Court be sent back to the concerned court for necessary action.

C.C. as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE trilok

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 02-May-23 10:30:28 AM