Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laxminarayan & Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 9 February, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 9 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 129 of 2003
BETWEEN:-
1. LAXMINARAYAN S/O BEERAM, AGED 23 YARS,
OCCUPATION-KASHTKAARI, R/O VILLAGE MODBADLI,
R.K. SUTHALIYA, DISTRICT-RAJGARH, (BIAORA)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAMSINGH S/O BEERAM, AGED 23 YARS,
OCCUPATION-KASHTKAARI, R/O VILLAGE MODBADLI,
R.K. SUTHALIYA, DISTRICT-RAJGARH, (BIAORA)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI H. JOSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATION -
SUTHALIYA, DISTRIC-RAJGARH, BIAORA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MAYANK MISHRA, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER APPEARING ON
BEHALF OF ADVOCATE GENERAL)
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
Appellants have filed this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 28.12.2002 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Biaora, District-Rajgarh in Sessions Trial
No.206/2001, whereby trial Court has convicted the appellants under Section
323 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo 6-6 months' R.I. with fine of
Rs.500-500/- and in default of payment of fine, further RI for 3-3 months.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 24.09.2000 at about 7 O'clock in the
evening, in the village-Modbadli, accused persons abused the complainant-
Premsingh of his caste near the Handpump nearing to Naala of the village and
also caused simple injuries to the complaint along with other persons.
3. In trial, trial Court framed charges against the appellants which were denied
by the appellants. After trial, appellants were found guilty and they were
convicted and sentenced as indicated herein above. Appellants have filed this
appeal being aggrieved by impugned judgment and submitted that trial Court
erred in law and fact in convicting the appellants under above sections when
there is no evidence available on record to prove the offence. He has further
submitted that there are so many contradictions and omissions in the evidence
of prosecution witnesses, therefore, their evidence should not be believed. So
on all these grounds, he prays that the conviction and sentence passed against
the appellants be set aside and they be acquitted from the charges.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and
prayed for rejection of the appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. After considering the statements of prosecution witnesses, it is found that
they are intact in their cross-examination and there is no reason to disbelieve
their evidence so in the considered opinion of this Court, trial court has not
committed any error in holding the appellant guilty under Section 323 of IPC,
therefore, conviction under Section 323 of IPC is upheld.
7. So far as the sentence is concerned, looking to the facts and circumstances
of the case and taking into account the fact that the incident is of the year
24.09.2000 and appellants are facing trial since then and the trial court has also
not given harsh punishment, hence, in the opinion of this Court, there is no need
to sentence the appellants any more under Section 323 of IPC.
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of
imprisonment of appellant for offence under Section 323 of IPC is set aside and
fine amount awarded by the trial court is upheld. Hence, the appellants are
sentenced only to pay the fine amount which he has already deposited.
9. Accordingly, appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial Court.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
N.R.
