Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suratlal vs Ratanlal & Another on 15 February, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 15 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1044 of 2007
BETWEEN:-
SURATLAL S/O BALARAM, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE VILL. DANTODA, DISTT.
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI SHAKIL AHMED KHAN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANT)
AND
1. RATANLAL & ANOTHER S/O PUNIRAM PATIDAR,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST VILL. DANTODA, DISTT.
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MP THRU. PS MANAK CHOUK RATLAM
DISTT. RATLAM (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
Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure against the judgment dated 24.08.2007 passed by Special Judge,
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District-Ratlam in Special Criminal Case
No.49/2002, whereby trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 323
of IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months' R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and
in default of payment of fine, further RI for one month.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 13.02.2001, there was a quarrel
between respondent No.1 and appellant on the point of grazing cattle in the field
of respondent No.1, thereafter, accused persons attacked on complainant
along with his family members by stick which caused injuries to them.
3. In trial, trial Court framed charges against the appellant which were denied
by the appellants. After trial, appellant was found guilty and he was convicted
and sentenced as indicated herein above. Appellant has filed this appeal being
aggrieved by impugned judgment and submitted that trial Court erred in law and
fact in convicting the appellant 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 appellant
be set aside and he 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
13.02.2001 and appellant is 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 appellant 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 appellant is
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.
