Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chatur Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 1 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2078 of 2008
BETWEEN:-
1. CHATUR SINGH S/O S/O NATHU SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 43 YEARS, VILL. DALON,P.S.CIVIL LINES,
CHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAJU @ ARVIND SINGHS/O NATHU SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, VILL. DALON,P.S.CIVIL
LINES,CHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY MS. SEEMA SAHU -ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI NARENDRA LODHI- PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by Session Judge Chhatarpur, in ST No.103/2007
whereby the appellant No.1 has been convicted under Sections 324/34 of Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year RI and fine of Rs. 2000/-and in
default, to further undergo 3 months RI and appellant No.2 has been convicted
under Sections 324 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year RI
and fine of Rs. 2000/-and in default, to further undergo 3 months RI
2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellant, Ms. Seema Sahu, Advocate
who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist the Court on behalf of
the appellant as amicus curiae.
3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in brief are that on
09.04.2007 at about 6:20 pm the complainant Saligram Dixit was going on his
Motorcycle with his friend Tarun Namdeo and as they came near Pitambara
Peeth, where a pit was on the way, the accused persons arrived there by
Motorcycle and obstructed the complainant by putting Motorcycle on the way.
The complainant when asked them to clear the way, the accused persons
passed filthy words. The accused Chatur Singh asked Raju Singh who was his
pillion rider to fire. Raju Singh, then with common intention to kill fired at the
complainant, causing injuries in his buttock. Upon screaming of complainant the
accused persons fled away.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that from the evidence on
record, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted, alternatively, he submits that
in fact and circumstances of the case, the sentence may be reduced to the
period already undergone. He further submits that during the trial, the appellants
remained in custody for 21 days. The incident is of the year 2007 since then the
appellants are facing mental agony. At the time of incident, the appellant No.1
was of 43 years of age and appellant No. 2 was of 32 years of age. They have
no criminal antecedent. They are the first offenders. As per the record, they
never misused the conditions of bail. The incident was of the year 2007 and
taken place all of a sudden and in heat and passion. There was no mens ria
behind the incident so a liberal view of the point of sentence be taken by the
Court, so he prayed that the sentence be reduced to period already undergone.
5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer submitted that the findings of learned
trial Court does not call for any interference. The Court is at liberty to consider
the matter on the point of sentence.
6. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of
record, it appears that FIR was lodged at P.S. AJK District Chhatarpur on
16.09.2005 against the appellants which was registered as Crime No.21/2005
under Sections 307,336,325, 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act.
After investigation, the charge sheet was filed.
7. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by
judgment dated 09.09.2008 convicted the appellants under Sections 324/34 of
of IPC and sentenced as stated herein above, however, the findings recorded
by the learned trial Judge are based on due appreciation of evidence and do not
require any interference. The judgment of conviction under Sections 324/34 of
IPC is upheld.
8. However, looking to the facts that the incident is of the year 2007 since
then the appellant is facing mental agony, the appellant remained in custody for
21 days. Appellant No.1 was of 43 years of age and appellant No. 2 was of 32
years of age at the time of incident. The prosecution has not brought any past
criminal antecedents of the appellants on record and there is no minimum
sentence has been prescribed under Sections 324/34 of Indian Penal Code at
that time, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellants to the
extent of the period which he has already undergone and accordingly, the jail
sentence is reduced to the period already undergone (21 days) by them and the
sentence of fine amount is maintained. The appellants are on bail, their personal
bonds and bail bonds be discharged. Accordingly the appeal is partly
allowed.
9. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
L.R.
