Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohan Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 511 of 2009
BETWEEN:-
1. MOHAN LAL S/O SUHKH LAL VISHWAKARMA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NARAYAN GANJ
MOHALLA HARPALPUR PS DISTT CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. OMPRAKASH S/O SHRI MOHANLAL
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, ALL R/O
NARAYAN GANJ MOHALLA HARPALPUR
P.S.HARPALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PREMCHANDRA S/O SHRI MOHANLAL
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, ALL R/O
NARAYAN GANJ MOHALLA HARPALPUR
P.S.HARPALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI MANOJ JHA - ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH P.S. HARPALPUR
DISTT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. SEEMA SAHU - 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 Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Chhatarpur in Special
Case No.86/2004 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections
325/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo six months RI and fine
of Rs. 700/- and in default, to further undergo four months RI and Section
323/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo three months RI and
fine of Rs. 300/- and in default, to further undergo four months RI.
2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Manoj Jha, Advocate
who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist the Court on behalf of
the appellants as amicus curiae.
3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in brief are that on
15.07.2004, at around 7.30 in the morning, when Kallu, Hardas and Hariram
were going to the field of Moti Seth for doing the work of palladari. On the way
near field of Maniram, they met the accused persons. Accused persons armed
with lathi surrounded them and beat them with lathi. After hearing the sound of
Kallut, her wife Dhankunwar came there, the accused persons also beat her with
lathi. Due to which they received injuries.
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 8 days. The incident is of the year 2004 since then the
appellants are facing mental agony. At the time of incident, the appellant No. 1
was of 54 years of age, appellant No. 2 was of 30 years of age and appellant
No. 3 was of 30 years of age. They have no criminal antecedent. They are the
first offenders. As per the record, they never misused the conditions of bail.
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. 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. Harpalpur District Chhatarpur on
15.07.2004 against the appellants which was registered as Crime No.148/2004
under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506-B, 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) 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 15.01.2009 convicted the appellants under Sections 325/34 and
323/34 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 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC is upheld.
8. However, looking to the facts that the incident is of the year 2004 since
then the appellants are facing mental agony, the appellants remained in custody
for 8 days. Appellant No. 1 was of 54 years of age, appellant No. 2 was of 30
years of age and appellant No. 3 was of 30 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 325/34 and 323/34 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
they have already undergone and accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced to the
period already undergone (8 days) by them and the sentence of fine amount is
maintained. Order of the trial Court regarding disposal of the property is also
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.
