Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anant Singh vs State Of M.P. on 26 August, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19409
1 CRA-899-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 26th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 899 of 2013
ANANT SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Rajiv Jain - Advocate for the appellant No.1.
Shri Puran Kumar Kulshreshtha - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
Appeal is abated against appellant No.2 Sundra.
2. This criminal appeal is being considered in respect of appellant No.1
Anant Singh.
3. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') has been preferred against the
impugned judgment dated 12.09.2013 passed by First Additional Sessions
Judge, Guna in Sessions Trial No.313/2012, whereby appellant No.1 has
been convicted for the offence under Sections 294, 323/34, 324/34, 326/34
and 506-B of IPC and sentenced to suffer one month RI with fine of Rs.200/-
, six months RI with fine of Rs.500/-, one year RI with fine of Rs.1000/-,
three years RI with fine of Rs.2000/- and one year RI with fine of Rs.1000/-,
with default stipulations.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19409
2 CRA-899-2013
4. Prosecution story, in short, is that on 13.7.2012 at about 3:00 PM
when the complainant Ram Prasad was making tapariya near Gaud Baba's
Chabutara at that time present appellant along with co-accused Sundra (dead)
came there and abused in filthy language and asked why he is constructing it
there, upon which the complainant replied that he is developing his own land
thereafter appellant/accused Anant Singh hit pharsa on his forehead and
nose, therefore, the complainant fell down on the spot. Thereafter both of
them beaten him by lathi. When his wife Bhagbai came there for intervention
then she was beaten by both the accused persons. Incident was witnessed by
Hari Harijan and Lalaram. Accused persons also abused both of them in
filthy language and also threatened for life. Complainant Ram Prasad lodged
an FIR at Police Station Aron, District Guna.
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
before JMFC, Aron, District Guna who has committed the case to the Court
of Sessions, thereafter the case has been transferred to the Court of First
Additional Sessions Judge, Guna. The Trial Court has framed charges
against the appellant for offence under Sections 326, 324, 323, 294, 506-
B/34 of IPC.
6. Appellant No.1 abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence by
stating that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. Prosecution has
examined as many as 10 witnesses while defence did not examine any
witness.
7. The Trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by both
the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence available on record convicted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19409
3 CRA-899-2013
the appellant No.1 for offence under Sections 294, 323/34, 324/34, 326/34
and 506-B of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred
this appeal before this Court.
8. During pendency of this appeal, appellant No.2 Sundra has expired,
therefore, this appeal stands abated against appellant No.2.
8. During course of the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant
did not press this criminal appeal on merits and he is only assailing the final
part of the impugned judgment. He confined his arguments on the point of
sentence only. The appellant No.1 is facing trial for long 13 years. Appellant
No.1 - Anant Singh has suffered incarceration from 30.7.2013 to 1.8.2013
and 12.9.2013 to 17.10.2013 i.e. for one month and eight days. He has
already suffered jail incarceration for sufficient period. He is not having any
criminal past. Consequently, leaned counsel for the appellant prays for
reduction of jail sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant
No.2.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the
prayer and prays for its rejection by supporting the impugned judgment.
10. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the
record, submissions of learned counsel for the appellants appear to be just
and proper and appellant No.1 has already suffered sufficient incarceration
and conviction has not been challenged by the appellant, therefore, it will be
appropriate to partly allow the appeal by affirming the conviction of
appellant, however, reducing the jail sentence to the period already
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19409
4 CRA-899-2013
undergone by him. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed by maintaining
the conviction of appellant No.1, but reducing the jail sentence to the period
already undergone by him. The fine amount imposed upon appellant No.1 is
hereby affirmed.
11. The appellant No.1 is on bail. His bail bond stand discharged.
12. The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by the
Trial Court is also affirmed.
13. The order regarding compensation to complainant/victim persons
as pronounced by the Trial Court is affirmed.
14. All the pending IA, if any, are also disposed of.
15. Let a copy of this order along with record of the Court below be
sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and necessary
compliance.
16. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
(alok)
