[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sudhir @ Tinku vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 December, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67026
1 CRA-1664-2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 15th OF DECEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1664 of 2009
SUDHIR @ TINKU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rajnish Pandey - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Vijay Pandey - Dy. Government Advocate for State of M.P.
JUDGMENT
The appellant has been in jail and during the trial and after post
conviction and from 28.11.2005 till day he remained in jail custody for 776
days as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant and not disputed by
learned Government Advocate for State.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is
heard finally as it was admitted on 11.9.2009.
3. The appellant is aggrieved of the judgment dated 21.8.2009 passed
in S.T. No.12 of 2009 by learned Sessions Additional Sessions Judge to the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Chhindwara by
which three accused persons including the present appellant were convicted
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.1000/- with
default stipulation of 6 months R.I under Section 394 of IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not challenging
the conviction of the appellant. The jail sentence of the appellant may be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67026
2 CRA-1664-2009
reduced as already undergone by him.
5. Learned Government Counsel has no objection if the prayer of
appellant's counsel is allowed.
6. Perused the record and considered the argument.
7. PW-1- Ayub, PW-2-Chandramohan Soni, PW-3-Laxmi Sen, PW-4-
Dr. Rajeev Jain, PW-5-Dr. Adidam Mandal, PW-6-Manish Nagle, PW-7-
Ghanshyam Toriya, PW-8-Dr. Prakash Kumar Bishoi, PW-9- Ajeej Khan,
PW-10-Apoorv Kumar, PW-11-Saroj Kumar, PW-12-Jiwan Choure, PW-13-
G.P. Shrivas, Sub Inspector, PW-14-Ramjee Singh, Head Constable, PW-15-
Akhilesh Soni, PW-16-Om Prakash Malvi.
8. Statements of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. are also
perused. On perusal of the record and evidence on record the conviction
under Section 394 of IPC against the appellant is well justified.
9. Perused the statement of victim Laxmi Sen (PW-3). Perused the
statement of Dr. Rajeev Jain (PW-4) who had examined the injured. It has
been opined that there were four injuries as mentioned in the evidence sheet
and those injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. He opined that these
injuries could have been caused due to fall from a motorcycle.
10. PW-5-Dr. Adidam Mandal has opined that there was bone injury
but he cannot say as to how old the bone injury was and it could have been
caused due to fall from a motorcycle.
11. PW-8-Dr. Prakash Kumar Bishoi has opined that he did not find
any bone injury. Therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case the jail
sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67026
3 CRA-1664-2009
The fine amount is raised from Rs.1000/- to Rs.5000/- and any amount
which is previously deposited shall be adjusted and an amount of Rs.4000/-
shall be given to PW-3-Laxmi Sen, S/o Shri Ramdayal Sen as
compensation. In default of depositing the fine amount, the appellant will
have to undergo default sentence as awarded by learned trial court.
12. Disposal of case property shall be as per judgment of the trial
court.
13. Depositing of fine shall be a pre condition before released of the
accused from the jail.
14. Accordingly this appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.
15. Subject to deposit of fine amount, the appellant be released from
the jail, if his presence is not required in any other case.
16. Record of the trial court be sent back.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
bks
