[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kallu Saur Tribal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64932
1 CRA-2783-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 10th OF DECEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2783 of 2011
KALLU SAUR TRIBAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vineet K. Pandey - Advocate as Amicus Curiae.
Smt. Ekta Gupta - Panel Lawyer for respondent.
ORDER
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, in ST
No. 542/2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 326
of IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year RI with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in
default, to further undergo 3 months RI.
2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Vineet Kumar
Pandey, Advocate who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist
the Court on behalf of the appellant as amicus curiae.
3. As per prosecution story, on 17th May 2011 at around 8 a.m., the
accused/ appellant is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 294,
326 and 506 Part II of the IPC for using obscene language, causing hurt to
the complainant Jeevanlal with an axe and intimidated him with death
threats. Based on the above report, a case was registered at the Police Station
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64932
2 CRA-2783-2011
Banda District Sagar as Crime/FIR (Ex.P/2). During the investigation, a
spot map (Ex.P/3) was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded.
4. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in
the competent court, which on its turn committed the case to the court of
session where the accused/appellant was tried.
5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges for commission of
offence under Sections 326, 294, 506 part-II of IPC. Applicant claimed to be
tried.
6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 8 witnesses viz. Dr.
Diwaker (P.W.1), complainant Jeevanlal (P.W.-2), Shyamrani (P.W.-3),
Shankar Sour (P.W.-4), Dr. Awadh Bihari (P.W.-5), V. K. Ahirwar (P.W.-6),
Kuldeep (P.W.-7), Pyarelal (P.W.-8) . No witness was examined in defence.
Prosecution adduced and exhibited documents as Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-
P/11.
7. Learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, found the
prosecution case proved in respect of commission of offence under Section
326 of IPC, but has acquitted the accused/appellant in respect of commission
of offence under Sections 294, 506 part-II of IPC in view of the compromise
entered into between the parties. Learned trial Court convicted and sentenced
the appellant/accused for commission of offence as shown herein-above in
paragraph 1.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to
challenge the conviction of the appellant recorded under Section 326 of IPC
by the Trial Court, but has prayed for reduction of jail sentence. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64932
3 CRA-2783-2011
submitted that the incident had taken place in the year 2011 i.e. almost 14
years ago. He has already served out approximately 11 days incarceration so
far as per Certificate under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is prayed that
appellant's jail sentence may be reduced/modified to the extent of period
already undergone by him as no fruitful purpose would get served by sending
him behind the bars again.
9. Learned counsel for the State has supported the findings recorded by
the Trial Court and has submitted that after appreciating the evidence
produced by the prosecution, the Trial Court has rightly found the appellant
guilty for the aforesaid offence and has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Court is at liberty to consider the matter on the point of sentence.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
impugned judgment and record of Trial Court.
11. On appreciation of the evidence on record, I find no infirmity and no
illegality in findings of conviction recorded by the Trial Court. Therefore,
findings of appellant's conviction for the alleged offence under Section
under Section 326 of IPC are upheld.
12. However, looking to the facts that the incident is of the year 2011
since then the appellant is facing mental agony, the appellant remained in
custody for 11 days. Appellant was of 35 years of age at the time of
incident. The prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of
the appellant on record and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him
under the bail. His conduct was cooperative during the trial. There is no
minimum sentence has been prescribed under Sections 326 of IPC at that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64932
4 CRA-2783-2011
time. Fine amount has already been deposited by the appellant and
compromise has also been taken place between the parties before the trial
Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to reduce
the jail sentence of the appellant to the extent of the period which he has
already undergone and accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced to the period
already undergone (11 days) by him and the sentence of fine amount is
maintained.
13. Order of the trial Court regarding disposal of property is also
maintained. The appellant is on bail, his personal bond and bail bond be
discharged. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed.
14. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the
judgment.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
mrs. mishra
