Dhruvnarayan vs The State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 15865 MP

                                                             1
                           IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                       BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                             ON THE 26 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
                                            CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1632 of 1999

                          BETWEEN:-
                          DHRUVNARAYAN S/O RAMCHANDRASINGH, AGED 50
                          YEARS, OCCUPATION EX-HEAD CONSTABLE, R/O
                          :SOMNATH, KIJUNI CHAL, POLICE STATION M.I.G.,
                          INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....APPELLANT
                          (BY SHRI BHAGWANSINGH WITH SHRI SHIVENDRA SINGH RAWAT -
                          ADVOCATES)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
                          STATION ALIRAJPUR, DISTRICT JHABUA (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI SANTOSH THAKUR - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                                This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the
                          following:
                                                            JUDGMENT

The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10/12/1999 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur, District Jhabua (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.335/1994, whereby the the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") and Section 28 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo 03 years Rigorous Imprisonment, 01 year RI and 01 year RI respectively with usual default stipulation. Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/27/2023 12:07:04 PM

2. The prosecution story in brief is that appellant was posted as a

Constable No.415 in SAF, 32 nd Battalion, Alirajpur. On 27/01/1994 Platoon Commander Surajmal Rajoriya gave warning to the appellant that he should not misbehave with the public. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid warning, after roll- call, at about 08:30 PM in camp, present appellant / accused abused Surajmal Rajoriya and Constable Kundarsingh in a filthy language and left the camp with Rifle 303 and cartridges. Upon this, Constable Kundarsingh went to report the incident to Surajmal Rajoriya and said that appellant had gone with the Rifle and cartridges. After some time, appellant came back to Camp. Then Constable Ramshankar tried to snatch his Rifle, upon this appellant with an intention to kill

fired gun shot upon him, which landed on the elbow of right hand of Hariom Choubey and on the left thigh of Ramdutt Katiyar. The incident was witnessed by Madansingh, Shyam Sunder Bilhare and Gopal Prasad. Thereafter, complainant Surajmal Rajoriya has lodged a FIR at Police Station Alirajpur. MLC of the injured Ramdutt, Shrinath Choubey and accused Dhruvnarayan was conducted by Dr. K. C. Gupta. During the investigation, Rifle and used cartridges have been recovered from the possession of the appellant, which were sent to the FSL, Sagar for its chemical examination.

3. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the appellant / accused before the JMFC, Alirajpur, who has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Alirajpur and later on matter has been transferred to the II ASJ, Alirajpur, District Jhabua (M.P.). The prosecution has examined as many as 06 witnesses before the trial Court, while defence has examined Ramnagina Ram (DW-1) and Constable Ramprakash Mishra (DW-

2).

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/27/2023 12:07:04 PM

4. The trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by both the parties and after scrutinizing the entire evidence available on record, convicted the appellant / accused under Section 307 and 324 of IPC and Section 28 of the Arms Act and sentenced as mentioned herein above. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and the sentence passed by the trial Court, the appellant has preferred present criminal appeal before this Court.

5.The appellant has preferred the present appeal on several grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and he is not assailing the conviction part of the judgment but he confined his argument only to the extent of quantum of sentence part. His only prayer is that imprisonment of the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone as the appellant has suffered some period of jail incarceration during the trial as well as during the pendency of the appeal. He is regularly marking his presence before the Court. He is a poor person and is not having any criminal background. Therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the appeal and prays for its rejection by submitting that the Court below has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant after due appreciation of evidence and the sentence in question is sufficient, therefore, no interference is warranted.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their arguments and perused the record and evidence produced by both the parties.

8. In view of the above submissions, although the conviction has not been challenged, but perusal of the evidence available on record also justifies the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court.

Signature Not Verified

9. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the submissions made Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/27/2023 12:07:04 PM

by the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be just and proper. The appellant has already suffered jail incarceration from 31/01/1994 to 09/03/1994 for 39 days during the trial as well as during the pendency of the appeal. At the time of incident, appellant was a young person of 30 years of age and now he has turned 60 years. He is not having any criminal background. He is facing trial since 1994 i.e. for last 30 years. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence awarded to him.

10. Considering the aforesaid, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of appellant under Section 307 and 324 of IPC and Section 28 of the Arms Act from 03 years to the period already undergone by him i.e. 39 days. The sentence of appellant is modified to the aforesaid extent.

11. Consequently, the present criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond and surety bond stands discharged. Disposal of the property shall be as per the order of the trial Court.

12. Let a copy of this judgment along with record of trial Court be sent back to the concerned Court below for information and necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Tej

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/27/2023 12:07:04 PM