Rajaram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 13311 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajaram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 May, 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 9 th OF MAY, 2024
                                              CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3821 of 2024

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RAJARAM S/O TOLARAM, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
                           OCCUPATION: LABOURER R/O DASHRATH NANDAN
                           COLONY DISTT. UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                              .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI AMAN MOURYA, LEARNED COUNSEL)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION CHINTAMAN
                           GANESH, DISTT. UJJAIN (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

With consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

2. The present appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.02.2024 passed by 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, Dist. Ujjain in Sessions Trial No.76/2023 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 month RI and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to till rising of Court and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

3. Prosecution story in short is that on 03.10.2022 at about 13:30 pm

when complainant Rattan along with Manohar and Anil had come to Chintaman from where he was going back to his home. When he reached near the house of Rajaram (present appellant) living in Chintaman Ganesh, Rajaram abused Manohar using indecent words against his mother and sister and demanded back his money, which was given as loan to Manohar. When Manohar refused to abuse then Rajaram started beating Manohar with slap and punches and then Ratan intervened, Rajaram abused him and hit him on the head with wooden stick then Manohar and Manohar's brother intervened thereafter complainant went to police station to report the abovementioned offence. The police registered Crime No.197/2022 under Sections 323, 294, 506 of IPC and after

completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet under Section 323, 294, 506 of IPC before the JMFC, Ujjain, Dist. Ujjain, who committed the case before the learned Sessions Court for trial.

4. At the outset counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not challenging the order of conviction on merit, but is confining challenge to the order of sentence. It is argued that the incident is of year 2022. The appellant has been prosecuting the trial and present appeal. It is argued that no mandatory jail sentence is prescribed under Section 323 of IPC. In respect of second count, the appellant has already undergone the sentence till rising the Court.

5. Counsel for the State supports the order of conviction and sentence.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties so far conviction is concerned, this Court finds that the prosecution has successfully proved its case by the testimony of PW-1 Ratan, PW-2 Manohar, PW-3 Anil Ajmera. Thus, this Court does not find in the order of conviction. So far the sentence is concerned, considering the nature of allegation and the fact that the appellant

has been facing trial since 2022 and no mandatory jail sentence is prescribed under Section 323 of IPC, the order of jail sentence is set aside and the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.2500/- on both counts. Jail sentence is set aside so far count No.1 is concerned and the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.2500/-. In respect of count No.2, the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.2500/-. Considering the fact that the appellant is a labourer, appellant is granted 2 months time to deposit the enhanced fine amount on both counts. In case if the fine amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the appellant shall undergo the jail sentence as per the order of the trial Court. The trial Court shall disburse the amount of Rs.2000/- out of Rs.2500/- on each count to victim Ratan and Manohar as compensation.

7. With the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE soumya