Madhya Pradesh High Court
Atul Nishad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 2025
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17617
1 CRA-3749-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 16th OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3749 of 2024
ATUL NISHAD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Soni - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Neetu Pashine- Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Ms. Premlata Lokhande - Advocate for the objector.
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties, heard finally at motion stage.
2. Appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment dated
23.02.2024 passed by Third Additional Judge to First Additional Sessions
Katni, District-Katni in ST. No.94/2022 whereby, appellant has been
convicted under Sections 307 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten
years and with fine of Rs.4,000/- with default stipulations.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not
challenging the conviction part of the judgment. He is only challenging
sentence part of the judgment. It is also urged that in the instant case, parties
have compromised the matter. It is also urged that appellant is in jail since
20.12.2021. Thus, he has served sentence of approximately three and half
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17617
2 CRA-3749-2024
years and if remission is added, then, appellant has served sentence of four
and half years out of sentence of 10 years. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that present case pertains to incident dated 19.12.2021
Therefore, appellant be sentenced with the period already undergone and
with fine imposed by the trial Court.
4 . Learned counsel for the State submits that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, appellant cannot be sentenced with the period
already undergone. He further submits that trial Court has rightly convicted
and sentenced the appellant. No interference is required in the same and
appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed.
5 . I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the case.
6 . So far as appellant's conviction under Section 307 of IPC is
concerned, this Court has examined the evidence available on record. From
testimonies of prosecution witnesses Shiv Nishad (PW-1), Sujeet Nishad
(PW-2), Vijay Nishad (PW-3), Govind Nishad (PW-4), Bharat Nishad (PW-
5), Dr. Abhishek Choudaha (PW-8), Dr. Pankaj Gupta (PW-12), Dr. D.P.
Sharma (PW-13), Tehsildar Ravindra Kumar Patel (PW-14), Sub-Inspector
Anil Yadav (PW-16) and Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P/1), Dying declaration (Ex.P/2),
Medical documents Ex.P/17, Ex.P/25, Ex.P/29, Ex.P/37 and FSL report
(Ex.P/42) and Ex.42-A, it clearly stands established that at alleged date, time
and place, appellant assaulted injured Shiv Nishand with knife and thereby
caused various injuries on vital parts of Shiv Nishad. With respect to
aforesaid, findings recorded by the trial Court are well supported by evidence
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17617
3 CRA-3749-2024
on record. Hence, learned trial Court has rightly convicted appellant under
Section 307 of the IPC. Therefore, findings recorded by the trial Court with
respect to above, are affirmed.
7. So far as sentence is concerned, learned trial Court has sentenced
appellant under Section 307 of the IPC with R.I. of 10 years and with fine of
Rs.4,000/- with default stipulation. In the instant case, parties have
compromised the matter and it has been verified by Registrar (J-I) and it has
been found genuine and voluntary. Incident is dated 19.12.2021. Appellant is
in jail since 20.12.2021. Thus, appellant has served substantive sentence of
approximately three and half years.
8. Hence, in view of aforesaid as well as principles of law laid down
by Hon'ble Apex Court in Pappu Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2000 SC 3633
( 2 ) , Ram Pujan and others. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC
456, Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
AIR 2011 SC 1821, Gulab Das and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2011) 10 SCC 765, Murali Vs. State (2021) SCC 726 (3 judge bench)
and Tarak Nath Singh & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal 1997 (10) SCC 209
, ends of justice would be served, if appellant is sentenced with period
already undergone and with fine as imposed by the trial Court.
9. Resultantly, appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed and
appellant is sentenced with period already undergone by him and with fine as
imposed by the trial Court.
10. Copy of judgment be sent immediately to concerned jail for
information and necessary action.
11. Appeal filed by appellant is partly allowed to the extend as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17617
4 CRA-3749-2024
indicated above.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
vai
