Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
JUDGEMENT DATED 4th March, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1698 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
DHARMENDRA AHIRWAR S/O SHRI NARAYAN AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 36
1. YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR GRAM BADONKALA THANA GAURAGHAT
DISTRICT DATIA(M.P. ) (MADHYA PRADESH)
MADAN AHIRWAR S/O SHRI NARAYAN AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
2. OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILLAGE BADONKALA THANA GORAGHAT DIST.
DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI SUSHIL GOSWAMI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS).
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICE STATION THROUGH
POLICE STATION GAURAGHAT DISTRICT DATIA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI PRABHAT PATERIYA - P.P.- APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE
GENERAL).
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:-
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants under section 374 (2)
of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 assailing the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 19/01/2024 passed by Sessions Judge, District Datia in S.T. No.
11/2023, by which, the appellants / accused have been convicted for the offence
punishable under section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for One year each with fine of Rs. 1, 000/- each with default stipulation
and acquitted them from the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC.
2. The facts in brief to decide this appeal are that the complainant has lodged an
FIR at police station concerned to the effect that on 21.10.2022, the deceased Sonu
Ahirwar son of Harcharan resident of village Badonkalan was playing cards
(gambling) with Rahul, Deepak, Ashiq, Dharmendra S/o Ramesh Ahirwar, Lakhan
and accused Dharmendra and Madan and on account certain dispute in regard to
money transaction arose between the accused persons and the deceased Sonu
Ahirwar, the accused persons assaulted the deceased Sonu Ahirwar by kicks and fists
and forcefully put him down on the earth and also dashed his head on the pole of the
electricity, due to which, blood started oozing out from his head and nose. Thereafter,
due to screaming, Satyendra and Rachna son and daughter of Harcharan came at the
spot and rescued the deceased Sonu Ahirwar and Harcharan father of the deceased
Sonu Ahirwar also reached at the spot of incident. Rahul, Deepak, Ashiq, Lakhan,
Dharmendra S/o Ramesh Ahirwar who were playing cards (gambling) with the
deceased Sonu Ahirwar were also present at the spot of the incident and had seen the
incident. Thereafter, the deceased Sonu Ahirwar sonu came to his home. Thereafter,
the deceased Sonu Ahirwar went away from his home by stating that he would lodge
an FIR against the accused persons namely Dharmendra and Madan, but thereafter
he did not come back to his home for the entire night. The family members of the
deceased Sonu Ahirwar tried to search him on all the possible places, but they could
not find him. Thereafter, on 22/10/2022 at about 6.30 Am in the morning, the
villagers informed Harcharan that dead body of his son namely Sonu Ahirwar was
hanging on the electricity pole near the river. On the basis of aforesaid, FIR bearing
crime No. 207/2022 was registered at police station Goraghat, District Datia for the
offence punishable under section 306, 34 of IPC and after conclusion of
investigation, charge sheet was filed before the competent court having criminal
jurisdiction.
3. The learned trial Court framed the charges against the appellants for the
offence punishable under section 323 in alternative 323/34 and 306/34 of IPC,
which were denied by them. In order to bring home the charges, prosecution has
examined as many as Fifteen (15) prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-15) and
Exhibited the documents from Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/25. The defence of accused is of
maladroit implication and the same defence has been put forth by them in their
statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
4. Learned trial Court after conclusion of trial, convicted the accused / appellants
for the offence punishable under section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced them to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for One year each with fine of Rs. 1, 000/- each with
default stipulation and acquitted them from the offence punishable under section 306
of IPC. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgement of conviction and order of
sentence dated 19/01/2024 passed by Sessions Judge, District Datia in S.T.. No.
136/2023, the accused / appellants have filed the instant criminal appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the accused / appellants argued that the appellants have
falsely been implicated in the case. It is further argued that there are omissions and
contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted
that prosecution has not examined any independent witness, but only interested
witnesses have been examined. It is further argued that appellants are facing the
criminal proceedings from the date of incident i.e. 21/10/2022 to till date and are
suffering physically and mentally for the same and have already served total
imprisonment of 75 days out of total awarded sentence of One year. It is further
argued that the injury caused to the complainant can be self inflicted or the same can
be caused due to falling down on the ground, but the learned trial Court has ignored
this important aspect of the matter and has convicted the appellants vide impugned
judgment. On these grounds, it is prayed that the appeal filed by the appellants
deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside.
6. In alternative leaned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants were in
jail for some time during trial and the jail sentence was suspended by the sessions
court and again the jail sentence was suspended by this Court temporarily for a
period of two months vide order dated 02/02/2024. It is submitted that looking to the
nature of offence and the fact that appellants have already served substantive part of
jail sentence, the same may be reduced to the period already undergone and the
amount of fine may reasonably be enhanced.
7. Learned counsel for respondent / State submits that after due appreciation of
evidence, learned Court below has found the offence proved against the appellants,
which requires no interference. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants
be dismissed.
8. From perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that no illegality has been
committed by the learned Court below in convicting the appellants, hence the
judgment of conviction passed by the learned Court below requires no interference
and is hereby maintained.
9. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, looking to the limited prayer
made by the counsel for the appellants and the nature of offence and the fact that
appellants are facing the criminal proceedings since 2022 and have already served
substantive period of jail sentence the purpose would be served in case the jail
sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone.
10. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The findings of conviction are
hereby maintained with the modification to the extent that the jail sentence awarded
to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Appellants are
on bail. Their bail bond stands discharged.
11. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed of.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
Durgekar*
