Indra Prasad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 4198 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Indra Prasad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 February, 2024

                                                            1
                           IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
                                             ON THE 13 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                            CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 863 of 2009

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    INDRA PRASAD S/O RAM PRASAD, AGED ABOUT
                                35  YEARS, VILL. JAMUNTOLA, PS BAHELA,
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    RAM DAYAL S/O RAM PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 32
                                YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL VILLAE JAMUNTOLA
                                P.S. BAHELA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    RAJ KUMAR S/O SHIVLAL, AGED ABOUT 31
                                YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL VILLAGE JAMUNTOLA
                                P.S. BAHELA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    RAM PRASAD S/O BABULAL, AGED ABOUT 66
                                YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL VILLAGE JAMUNTOLA
                                P.S. BAHELA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....APPELLANT
                          (BY SHRI NARENDRA LODHI - ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE )

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PS
                          MAHELA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI MANISH MUKHRAIYA - 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 appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by 1st Additional Session Judge, Balaghat in S T No.13/2009

whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year RI and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to further undergo three months RI.

2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Narendra Lodhi, Advocate who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant as amicus curiae.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in brief are that on 06.12.2018 appellants voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the complainant Shukhcharan.

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 the fact and circumstances of the case, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. There was no mens ria behind the incident so a liberal view of the point of sentence be taken by the Court, so she 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. Bahela District Balaghat on 07.12.2008 against the appellants which was registered as Crime No.75/2008 under Sections 307, 341, 323, 34 of IPC. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed.

7. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by judgment dated 16.04.2009 convicted the appellants under Sections 325/34 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 of IPC is upheld.

8. However, looking to the facts that the incident is of the year 2008 since then the appellants are facing mental agony, appellants remained in custody for 5 days. Appellant No.4 was of 66 years of age and appellants No. 1 to 3 were of between 30 to 35 years of age at the time of incident. The appellants did not misuse the liberty granted to them under the bail. 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 o f I.P.C. 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 (5 days) by them and the sentence of fine amount is maintained. Order of the trial Court regarding disposal of 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.