Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jujhar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11171 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. JUJHAR S/O SHRI RAMLAL, AGED ABOUT 30
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILLAGE
PANCHPANIYA TEHSIL BADNAWAR DISTRICT
DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NARSINGH S/O SHRI RAMLAL, AGED ABOUT 27
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE
PANCHPANIYA TEH. BADNAWAR DISTT. DHAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI JITENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION BADNAWAR
DISTRICT DHAR. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI AJAY RAJ GUPTA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
With the consent of parties, heard finally. This Court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
T his is an appeal u/S 374 of the Cr.P.C. arising out of judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 10.11.2022 passed by I Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Badnawar, district Dhar in S.T.No.27/2020 whereby the
appellants have been convicted under sections 307 and 323 of IPC and sentenced
to undergo 7 years RI with fine of Rs.5000/- and 6 months RI with fine of
Rs.500/- with default stipulation.
Signing time: 2/8/2024 10:56:43
2. As per prosecution case, informant Pankaj lodged a report at at 12.00
pm a disputed arose of the issue of harvesting of maize crops between his cousin
Sonu and Dilip with Narsingh and his wife Vishnubai. He also went there at 5.00
p.m. to resolve the dispute with Bharat. When he was talking with Bharat, at that
time present appellants Jujhar and Narsingh came there and Jujhar gave lathi blow
on his head. Narsingh also assaulted him by lathi and he sustained injury on left
hand. On this, Sonu tried to save him then accused also caused injuries to Sonu
and he sustained injury on the head. Vijay and Dilip came there. Then accused
persons fled away from the spot and also threatened them. On the said
information, police registered a case u/s 294, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC against the
accused persons. On the basis of medical opinion, section 307 IPC was added.
After due investigation, police filed chargesheet. After committal, the matter came
up before Sessions Court. The trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants
as mentioned above.
3. Counsel for the appellants submits that trial court has erred while
convicting the appellants. There were material contradictions in the statement of
Bharat (PW-4) and Kailash (PW-6). The trial court has committed error in
disbelieving the defence adduced by the appellants and testimony of defence
witness DW-1 (Dr. Rani Jaiswal) and Ex.D/6.
4. Counsel for the State supports the judgment of conviction and sentence
and submits that prosecution story is supported by the evidence of complainant
Pankaj (PW-1) and Dilip (PW-13). The complainant has specifically stated that
appellant Jujhar caused injury to Sunil with stick and appellant Narsingh caused
injury to Pankaj. The testimony of complainant Pankaj who is also a victim, is
well corroborated with the testimony of Dr. Rani Jaiswal (PW-14) and with the
report Ex.P/19 and P/20. In the query report Ex.P/21 she also stated that injury
received by Sunil was dangerous to life.
Signing time: 2/8/2024 10:56:43
5. Considering the same, I do not find any illegality in the order of
conviction. The same is maintained.
6. On the question of sentence, learned counsel for appellants submits that
incident is said to have taken place in the year 2020. The appellants have already
undergone jail sentence of more than three and half years and 7 days. Thus, they
have undergone substantial jail sentence and undertake not to indulgence in any
offence in future. The incident had taken place in the year 2020. No purpose
would be served in sending the appellants in jail after a long period. Therefore, the
appellants may be sentenced to the period already undergone and fine amount
may be increased which may be directed to be paid to the complainant.
7. Counsel for State submits that injury received by Sunil has been found to
be dangerous to life.
8. After hearing learned counsel for parties and taking into consideration that
appellants have undergone jail sentence of three and half year and 7 days, further
the incident had taken place in the year 2020, this Court is of the view that no
purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending and sending the appellants
in jail after a long period. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction
is maintained. The jail sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already
undergone by them and the fine amount under section 307 IPC is enhnaced from
Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/- each, which shall be deposited by the appellants within
a period of two months from today before the trial court. Out of the said amount,
Rs.10,000/- each shall be paid to the injured Pankaj and Sunil by the trial court.
T he appellants are in jail. They shall be released from jail after deposit of the
enhanced fine amount. If the appellants fail to deposit the fine amount within the
aforesaid period, they shall undergo the remaining jail sentence as per order of the
trial court.
Signing time: 2/8/2024 10:56:43
C.c. as per rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
Signing time: 2/8/2024 10:56:43
