Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ambaram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 May, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 16 th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 407 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. AMBARAM S/O KISHORESINGH GURJAR, AGED
ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
VILL-BADIGAW P.S. SALSALAI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. MAHESH S/O LAKSHINARAYAN GURJAR, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
VILLAGE BADIGAW, P.S. SALSALAI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VISHAL PANWAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THR. P.S. SALSALAI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI SUHAS PUNDLIK, G.A. FOR STATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. Heard on the question of admission.
2. Admit.
3. With consent of the parties heard finally.
4. This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 of Cr.P.C. by the
appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.01.2022, passed by
learned Special Judge, District-Shajapur, in ST No.89/2018, whereb y the
appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324/34
of IPC and sentenced to undergo 01 year RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with
default stipulations.
5. According to prosecution case, there is a root near the house of the
complainant. On 24.05.2016 at 21.30 O'clock to 21.40 O'clock, the appellants
were taking their tractor, then Alamsingh asked them that don't take tractor
otherwise his house would be destroyed then appellant Ambaram said him that
he will take the tractor from there and started abusing. After issue, the
appellants and other accused persons took arms and also started beating the
complainant party. Thereafter, the complainants reached to the police station
and lodged FIR against the appellants under Sections 323, 294, 506, 34 of
IPC.
6. The police after following the due procedure, prepared the spot map,
taken the statements of the witnesses, seized the articles used in the crime.
Injured persons were sent for treatment and police arrested the accused persons
and after due investigation, filed the charge-sheet. The matter was committed to
the Court of Sessions.
7.Thereafter, appellants were charged for offence under Section 324/34,
294 and 506 of IPC. They abjured their guilt and took a plea that they have been
falsely implicated in the present crime and prayed for trial.
8.Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence and argument
adduced by the parties, pronounced the impugned judgment on 05.01.2022 and
finally concluded the case and convicted the appellants for commission of the
said offence under Section 324/34 of IPC.
9. The appellants have preferred this criminal appeal on several grounds
but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants did not
press this appeal on merits and not assail the finding of conviction part of the
judgment. It is further submitted that the appellants have already undergone a
period of approximately one month out of their incarceration. He confines his
arguments on the point of sentence and fine. Counsel for the appellants assures
that the appellants will not involve in such criminal activities in future. He also
submitted that he is having regard to all circumstances which resulted in
appellants' conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the appellants
were facing the trial before the concerned Court for more than 6 years,
therefore, the term of imprisonment be reduced to the period as already been
undergone by the appellants by enhancing the fine amount.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer.
11. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the
record, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants appears to be
just and proper.
12. However, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in
appreciation of evidence available on record. Further, it is found that the
Court below considered the evidence available on record and correctly
found that the case of the prosecution is well supported by the witnesses
and medical testimony. The Court below has well considered the material
available on record, hence, no infirmity is found in the impugned order of
conviction passed by the Court below, accordingly, the same is upheld.
13. The appellants have suffered the ordeal of criminal case since 2018 as
well as incarceration of approximately one month and also there is no criminal
record/antecedents of the appellants, therefore, this Court finds it expedient to
partly allow this appeal by affirming the findings given by the trial court by
imposing appropriate compensation for the complainant.
14. So far as the sentence of the appellants is concerned, taking into
consideration that the incident had taken place in the year 2018 and further the
appellants have already undergone jail sentence for a period of approximately
1 month out of their incarceration, this Court is of the view that the sentence of
the appellants are reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the
fine amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.10,000/- under Section 324 of IPC each
which will be deposited by the appellants within a period of two months from
today. Out of the total fine amount, Rs.5,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid
to the injured persons Fatehsingh and Alamsingh under Section 357(3) of
Cr.P.C. by the trial.
15. The fine amount, if already deposited as well as the compensation
amount paid to the injured, if any, shall be adjusted.
16. The bail bond of the appellants shall be discharged after depositing
the fine amount.
17. If the appellants fail to deposit the fine amount, they will suffer 3-3
months of simple imprisonment in default and thereafter completion of the
same, they shall be released from jail, if not required in any other case.
18. The order of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized
property, if any, stands confirmed.
19. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
necessary compliance.
20. Pending application, if any, stands closed.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
VD
