Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandersingh And 02 Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 22 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 858 of 2010
BETWEEN:-
1. CHANDERSINGH AND 02 ORS. S/O
SAMANDERSINGH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULATURE GRAM TALENI
TEH. SARANGPUR DISTT. RAJGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. BHAGWANSINGH S/O ONKARSINGH, AGED
ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICL. GRAM
TALENI, TEH. SARANGPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. NABBU @ NIRBHAYSINGH S/O BIHARILAL , AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICL. GRAM
TALENI, TEH. SARANGPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VIJAYENDRA PANWAR, LEARNED COUNSEL)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT. THROUGH
POLICE STATION SARANGPUR DISTT. RAJGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI AJAY RAJ GUPTA, LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
1. This Court issued non-bailable warrant on 28.01.2020 to secure
presence of appellant No.1 Chandersingh. A report has been received that he is
not residing in the village and the non-bailable warrant has been received
unserved. The appeal is of year 2010. Considering the same, the matter is heard
on merit.
2. The present appeal is filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the
judgment dated 23.07.2010 passed in ST No.264/2009 by ASJ, Shajapur
whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 325/34 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs.2000/- respectively, in
case of default of payment of fine, they shall undergo six months additional RI.
Appellants have also been convicted under Section 323/34 of IPC and each of
them sentenced to only fine of Rs.1000/-, in case of default of payment of fine,
they shall undergo further additional three months RI.
3. The prosecution case is that on 31.07.2009, complainant Mangilal was
going to Gram - Taleni by motorcycle with Omprakash Prajapati. On the mid
way Omprakash motorcycle was put on Sakhedi Bus stand, so he was dropped
on Sakhedi Bus-stand. At that time at 06:45 PM on the way of Gram - Taleni,
Laadsingh Gurjar met him and requested to take with him. When he stopped his
vehicle, it is alleged that accused Chandersingh, Bhagwansingh and
Nirbhaysingh came there armed with lathis and caused injury to the complainant
by sticks and stones. They were prosecuted for offences under Section 307 or
307/34 and 323/34 of IPC, however, the trial Court had convicted the appellants
under Section 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC as mentioned earlier. The prosecution
is established by the testimony of Mangilal (PW-2), Hukumsingh (PW-1),
Radheshyam (PW-4), and the same is corroborated by testimony of PW-5 Dr.
Vasant Saraswat, PW-6 Munnalal, Ratanlal (PW-7), Dr. Vinod Wadhwani (PW-
8), Dr. Ratnesh Gite (PW-9), Dr. Arpana Sodhani (PW-10) and Sunita Mandloi
(PW-11).
4. Complainant Mangilal deposed that when he was going to village
Taleni along with Omprakash Prajapati, his vehicle was stopped. At that time
the accused persons came at the spot, armed with lathis and caused injuries
with lathis and stones. Initially he was examined by Dr. Vasant Saraswat (PW-
5), who stated that the victim had received as many as three injuries on her
person. Injury No.1 was lacerated wound on the left side of the skull which was
3 x 1 c.m. caused by some hard and blunt object. There was a fracture and he
advised for CT scan. The injury No.2 was caused on nose and there was a
bleeding. The same was also caused by some hard and blunt object. The injury
No.3 was a lacerated wound on the right leg which was also caused by hard and
blunt object. The testimony of victim Mangilal is further corroborated by
eyewitness PW-1 Hukum Singh. He also proved his report Ex.P/1. Dr. Vinod
Wadhwani (PW-8) who had conducted CT scan. He had reported that he had
found multiple fractures on the head. He proved his report Ex.P/16. Another
Dr. Ratnesh Gite (PW-9) proved that there was fracture on the front bone of the
head of Mangilal. Apart from that Dr. Arpana Sodhani (PW-10) who conducted
CT scan submitted her report Ex.P/16. Thus, the testimony of complainant
Mangilal is well corroborated by other witnesses and with medical evidence.
This Court does not find any error in the order of conviction. Thus, the
conviction is maintained.
5. Heard on sentence.
6. Counsel for the appellants submits that the incident had taken place in
the year 2009 and the appellants had remained in jail during the trial about 21
days. Instead of sending them jail after such long period of more than 15 years,
their jail sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. They were on
bail during trial and the liberty was not misused.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, while maintaining the
conviction, the jail sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already
undergone and the fine amount under Section 325/34 of IPC is enhanced from
Rs.2000/- to Rs.5000/- each and fine amount under Section 323/34 of IPC is
enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/- each. The enhanced fine amount shall be
paid to the complainant Mangilal as compensation by the trial Court. The
enhanced fine amount shall be deposited within a period of three months from
today. If the fine amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the
appellants shall undergo the remaining jail sentence and if the fine amount is
deposited, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
8. With the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
soumya
