Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sartan Singh Rajpoot & Others vs The State Of M.P. on 12 February, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 12 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 298 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
1. SARTAN SINGH RAJPOOT S/O INDERSINGH
RAJPUT OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE
KHAD DHAMNIYA, THANA SUWASRA, DISTRICT-
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. GORDHANSINGH S/O INDERSINGH RAJPUT
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE KHAD
DHAMNIYA, THANA SUWASRA , DISTRICT-
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SARDARSINGH S/O INDERSINGH RAJPUT
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE KHAD
DHAMNIYA, THANA SUWASRA , DISTRICT-
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI R.L. PATIDAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(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
Appellants have filed this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 01.03.2005 passed by Third
Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in Session Trial No.103/2004, whereby
trial Court has convicted the appellants-(1) Sartan Singh and (3) Sardar Singh
under Sections 323 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo 6 months' S.I. and
appellant (2) Gordhan Singh under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced him to
undergo 6 months' S.I. and also convicted all the appellants under Section 323
of IPC and sentenced them to undergo 6 months S.I.
2. 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.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the
case.
4. 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 323 and 323/34 of
IPC. Hence, findings recorded by the trial Court with respect to conviction are
affirmed.
5. So far as sentence is concerned, record of the case reveals that incident
took place on 11.07.004 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 19 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
appellants. Appellant Nos.(1) Sartan Singh and (3) Sardar Singh remained in jail
from 04.08.2004 to 10.08.004 and appellant No.2- Gordhan remained in jail
from 12.07.2004 to 28.07.2004, hence, the end of the justice would be best
served, if their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.
6. 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.
7. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned court for
compliance. The present appeal is partly allowed.
Let the record of the trial court be sent back.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
N.R.
