Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hemraj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 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 5 th OF MARCH, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 388 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. HEMRAJ S/O MANGILAL RUHELA, AGED ABOUT
55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST/
LABOR VILLAGE BAIHED P.S. KARANWAS DIST.
RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BHARATSINGH S/O MANGILAL RUHELA, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST/LABOUR VILLAGE BAIHED P.S.
KARANWAS DIST. RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. BALRAM S/O MANGILAL RUHELA, AGED ABOUT
28 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST/LABOUR VILLAGE BAIHED P.S.
KARANWAS DIST. RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. LAKHAN S/O BHANWARLAL RUHELA, AGED
ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST/LABOUR VILLAGE BAIHED P.S.
KARANWAS DIST. RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI MITESH PATIDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
KARANWAS, DIST. RAJGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. NARAYAN S/O BHAGCHAND VERMA RUHELA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
VILLAGE BAIHED P.S. KARANWAS DIST.
RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SAGAR MULEY - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR STATE)
(NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 THOUGH REPRESENTED BY SHRI
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 3/5/2024 5:21:01
PM
2
K.P.SINGH - ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is appeal u/S 14-A(I) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and u/s
374 of the Cr.P.C. arising out of judgment of conviction and sentence dated
7.12.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in
Spl. case No.4/2020 whereby the appellants have been convicted under sections
323/34 IPC and section 3(2)(Va) of SC & ST Act and sentenced to undergo 6
months RI with fine of Rs.4000/- each and 6 months RI with fine of Rs.2000/-
each respectively with default stipulation.
2. As per prosecution story, the present appellants on 1.1.2020 had
abused and caused injury to the complainant and his family members regarding a
dispute going on about land of complainant with the appellants.
3. Counsel for the appellants at the outset submits that appellants are not
challenging the conviction on merits but he is confining his prayer to reduce the
period of sentence upto the period already undergone by appellants. The alleged
incident has taken place in the year 2020. The appellants have already undergone
jail sentence of 1 day and they were on bail during trial and also after conviction,
their jail sentence was suspended. They have not misused the liberty. They
maintained good record and relation with the complainant. No purpose would be
served in sending the appellants in jail after such long period.
4. So far as conviction of appellant is concerned, the same has been
proved by the testimony of Narayansingh (PW-1), Dhapubai (PW-2), Vishal
(PW-3) and Radheshyam (PW-4). Their testimony is well corroborated by Dr.
J.K. Shakya(PW-5). Thus, this Court does not find any error on the judgment of
conviction.
Signing time: 3/5/2024 5:21:01
5. Heard on the question of sentence.
6. The incident is said to have taken place in the year 2020. The
appellants have remained in jail for one day. They were on bail during trial and
also after conviction, their jail sentence was suspended. They have not misused
the liberty. No purpose would be served in sending the appellants in jail after such
long period. The appellants have been convicted under section 3(2)(va) of SC &
ST (PA) Act which reads as under :-
Sec. 3(2)(va) whoever, not being a member of Scheduled Caste or
a Scheduled Tribe -
commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or
property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member shall be
punishable with such punishment as specified under Indian Penal Code
for such offences and shall also be liable to fine.
Thus, substantive conviction of appellant is under section 323 IPC,
which reads as under :-
Sec. 323 Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt -
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily
causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may
extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
6. After going through the aforesaid provision, it is evident that under
section 323 IPC, no minimum jail sentence is prescribed and fine amount may
extend to Rs.1000/-. Considering the aforesaid submission, while maintaining the
conviction of appellants, the jail sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period
already undergone. It is directed that out of total fine amount of Rs.24,000/-,
Rs.20,000/- shall be given by the trial court to the victim Radheshyam.
7. It is submitted that appellants have deposited the fine amount. The
aforesaid fact shall be verified by the trial court and if the fine amount is already
deposited, the bail bond of the appellants shall be discharged.
Signing time: 3/5/2024 5:21:01
With the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed and disposed off.
C.c. as per rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
Signing time: 3/5/2024 5:21:01
