Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arun Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4126
1 CRA-12120-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 28th OF JANUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12120 of 2024
ARUN CHOUDHARY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. Balkishan Choudhary - Advocate for applicant.
Ms. Ranjana Agnihotri - Deputy Government Advocate for State.
JUDGMENT
I.A. No.29273 of 2024 is an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No.29273 of 2024 is
allowed and delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
I.A. No.32464 of 2024 is an application for amendment in order dated
14.11.2024.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in
custody since 23.08.2024 and the Court extended the suspension till the next
date of hearing.
Looking to the fact that the appellant is in jail, the order of extension
of suspension is taken back. Accordingly, I.A. No.32464 of 2024 is hereby
allowed.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4126
2 CRA-12120-2024
the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and sentence
dated 23.08.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Seoni, District-Seoni (M.P.) in
S.T. No.158 of 2023 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default
stipulations.
2. Prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 08.06.2023 at about 12:30
AM in the night, complainant Narendra Yadav (PW-2) was watching TV in
his house, then the appellant came there and started abusing, on that the
injured Rajendra Yadav (PW-1) came out of his house and objected the
same, on that the appellant, scuffled with Rajendra Yadav (PW-1) and
assaulted him with an iron rod on that the victim suffered the injury on his
head and right hand. Sawan Yadav (P.W-3) came and pacified the dispute.
The complainant lodged the F.I.R at Police Station-Seoni, District -Seoni on
that basis Crime No.523 of 2023 for an offence punishable under Sections
294, 324, 506 & 326 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered. The
complainant and the injured person were medically examined. The
accused/appellant was arrested. After completion of investigation, charge-
sheet has been filed before the competent Court.
3. Trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 294,
506(Part-II) & 326 of the Indian Penal Code and read over to him who
abjured his guilt and prayed for trial.
4. The trial Court examined the prosecution witnesses and the
appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4126
3 CRA-12120-2024
hearing both the parties, convicted and sentenced him under Section 325 of
the Indian Penal Code, hence, this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is a
contradictions in the statement of witnesses. Rajendra Yadav (P.W-1) has
stated that the appellant assaulted the victim with the iron rod, whereas,
Narendra Yadav (P.W-2), the complainant and the brother of the injured has
stated that appellant assaulted the victim with sword and the same fact has
been stated by Sawan Yadav (P.W-3) that the appellant assaulted the victim
by sword whereas, Dr. Narendra Nath Namdeo (P.W-5) has stated that the
injuries found in the hand were lacerated wound. He further submits that
there is a difference in the weapon of offence and thus, the prosecution story
is doubtful, hence the appellant be acquitted and alternatively argued that the
appellant is in custody for more than four months, hence, the period of
detention be limited to the period already undergone.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that after
appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the trial Court has
rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence, therefore, no
grounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellant,
hence, he prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
7. On the fact of the incident, Rajendra Yadav (P.W-1) has clearly
stated that on 08.06.2023 at about 12:30 AM in the night, after taking meal,
he was walking. The appellant came and started abusing there and when he
told him that go any other place and abused there on that the appellant
brought a rod from his house and assaulted him in his right hand and head.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4126
4 CRA-12120-2024
This fact is supported by Narendra Yadav (P.W-2) and Sawan Yadav (P.W-
3). There is no difference on this point. Only there is a difference that the
injured Rajendra Yadav (P.W-1) has stated that the appellant assaulted with
the rod, whereas, Narendra Yadav (PW-2) and Sawan Yadav (PW-3) both
have stated that appellant brought a sword but it is clear from cross-
examination of these witnesses that iron object was used and as per Exhibit-
P/10, an iron strip was recovered from the possession of the appellant.
8. Thus, on material point, the incident took place in night and it is on
the observations of the witnesses that someone understood that it was rod and
someone understood that it was sword but the fact is proved that the appellant
assaulted the injured Rajendra Yadav (P.W-1) on his head and right hand by
hard iron object. Dr. Narendra Nath Namdeo (P.W-5) stated that the fracture
was caused in the right hand and on head in the parieto occipital bone, thus,
the victim suffered the grievous injuries in the incident. Independent witness
Govind Dehariya (P.W-6) has also supported that complainant is the family
member of the injured Rajendra Yadav (P.W-1).
9. Furthermore, the F.I.R. in the case, was lodged on 08.06.2023 as
proved by ASI, Santosh Ben (P.W-4), thus, the injury suffered by the victim
was supported by the independent witness. Thus, it is clear that the appellant
assaulted the injured Rajendra Yadav (P.W-1) and the grievous injury was
caused to the injured. The weapon, used in offence for causing those injuries,
as per Officiating Head Constable, Dhooplal Netram (P.W-7), was recovered
from the possession of the appellant and no ambiguity has been brought on
the record. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 325 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4126
5 CRA-12120-2024
Indian Penal Code is affirmed.
10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant
has no criminal record and he is 26 years old. There was no any previous
animosity and there was no economic reason for which the offence was
committed. Hence, jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to Rigorous
Imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 325
of the Indian Penal Code with fine amount of Rs.5,000/- and in default of
depositing the fine amount, further Rigorous Imprisonment for one
month. The pre-detention period of the appellant shall be adjusted in the jail
sentence i.e. from 01.10.2023 to 09.10.2023 and after passing of judgment
i.e. from 20.09.2024 till date.
11. Consequently, appeal is partly allowed.
12. The order of the trial Court regarding the seized property is
disposed of.
13. With the copy of judgment, the record of trial Court be sent back.
14. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court below for
information and necessary compliance.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
julie
