Madhya Pradesh High Court
Baagraj Pal 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. 203 of 2009
BETWEEN:-
1. BAAGRAJ PAL S/O DHANNI PAL, AGED ABOUT 34
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: PANCHAYAT KARMI
VILL.BHELSI,PS JAIRON, (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. IMRAT LODHI S/O DESHRAJ LODHI, AGED ABOUT
33 YEARS, ALL R/O BHELSI P.S.JAIRAN DISTT
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PRAN SINGH S/O VEERNARAYAN YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 23 YEARS, ALL R/O BHELSI P.S.JAIRAN
DISTT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY MS. SEEMA SAHU -ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PS
JAIRON (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI MANISH MUKHARIYA - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT)
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 1st Additional Session Judge, Tikamgarh in ST
No.227/2005 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 148
of IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year RI and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in
default, to further undergo six months RI, Section 341/149 of Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to further undergo
seven days SI, Sections 353/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year RI
and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to further undergo six months RI and
Sections 427/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months RI and fine of
Rs. 500/- and in default, to further undergo one month RI.
2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellants, Ms. Seema Sahu, 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
23.01.2005, at about 2 pm accused persons have committed rioting with deadly
weapons and tried to interrupt polling team and also tried to snatch ballot paper
and forcefully stop the proceedings of polling.
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, appellant
No.1 remained in custody for 17 days, appellant No.2 remained in custody for
71 days and appellant No.3 remained in custody for 7 days. The incident is of
the year 2005 since then the appellants are facing mental agony. At the time of
incident, the appellant No. 1 was of 34 years of age, appellant No. 2 was of 33
years of age and appellant No. 3 was of 23 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. Jeron District Tikamgarh on
23.01.2005 against the appellants which was registered as Crime No.3/2005
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 353 and 307 of IPC. After investigation, the
charge sheet was filed.
7. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by
judgment dated 16.01.2009 convicted the appellants under Sections 148,
341/149, 353/149 and 427/149 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 148, 341/149, 353/149 and 427/149 of IPC is
upheld.
8. However, looking to the facts that the incident is of the year 2005 since
then the appellants are facing mental agony, appellant No.1 remained in custody
for 17 days, appellant No.2 remained in custody for 71 days and appellant No.3
remained in custody for 7 days. Appellant No. 1 was of 34 years of age,
appellant No. 2 was of 33 years of age and appellant No. 3 was of 23 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 148, 341/149, 353/149 and 427/149 o f 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 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.
