Chhatar Singh vs The State Of M.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 3746 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Chhatar Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 8 February, 2024

Author: Hirdesh

Bench: Hirdesh

                                                            1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                       BEFORE
                                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
                                              ON THE 8 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 20 of 2002

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    CHHATAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    RAMLAL S/O MANGILAL, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
                                 OCCUPATION: LABOURER, R/O PATEL NAGAR,
                                 INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    GOPAL S/O MANGILAL, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, ,
                                 OCCUPATION: LABOURER, R/O RAMKRISHNA
                                 NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    KAILASH S/O MANGILAL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
                                 , OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O HARIJAN COLONY,
                                 BHANWAR KUAN INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.    MAYARAM S/O GANGARAM, AGED ABOUT 40
                                 YEARS,OCCUPATION: LABOURER, R/O GANDHI
                                 NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....APPELLANTS
                           (SHRI A. UKAS, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATION
                           BETMA, DISTRICT-INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI MAYANK MISHRA,         LEARNED     PANEL    LAWYER     FOR    THE
                           RESPONDENT / STATE)

                                 T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                           following:
                                                          JUDGMENT

At the outset, learned panel lawyer submits that appellant No.1-Chatar

Singh S/o Lalsingh has passed away.

2. In view of above, present appeal stands abated against appellant No.1- Chatar Singh.

3 The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 30.11.2001 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No.660/93, whereby trial Court has convicted the appellants under Sections 148, 452, 324/149 of IPC and under Section 323/149 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo 6 months' R.I. with fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one month; One year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, further

R.I. for two months; 6 months' R.I. with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one month and; 3 months' R.I. with fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one month, respectively to each appellants.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset, submits that he is not challenging impugned judgment on merits and is confining his argument to sentence only.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.

6. So far as conviction is concerned, I have gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution and examined it minutely. From perusal of overall evidence on record, it is clearly established that learned trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellants under Sections 148, 452, 324/149 of IPC and under Section 323/149 IPC. Hence, findings recorded by the trial Court with respect to conviction are affirmed.

7. So far as sentence is concerned, record of the case reveals that incident

took place on 19.10.1990 and since then the appellants are regularly appearing before the concerned Court on the dates so fixed for their appearance. Therefore, at this juncture after 33 years if they are sent to jail then enmity between the parties will further increase and appellants may become hard criminal in the company of hard criminals in jail. This is first offence of the accused, who were in jail from 22.10.1999 to 26.10.1999, hence, the end of the justice would be best served, if their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.

8. In view of the aforesaid, present appeal is partly allowed and conviction of the appellants by the trial court is upheld. So far as sentence awarded by the trial court is concerned, same is modified to the period already undergone by the appellants in jail.

9. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned court for compliance. The present appeal is partly allowed.

(HIRDESH) JUDGE N.R.