Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tulsiram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2200
1 CRA-9953-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 28th OF JANUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9953 of 2018
TULSIRAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Appellants by Shri Anshul Shrivastava - Advocate.
Respondent - State of Madhya Pradesh by Shri Ajay Raj Gupta - Panel
Lawyer appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as the Code) has been preferred by
the appellants against judgment and order dated 11.12.2018 passed in Special
Session Trial No.61 of 2013 by learned Special Judge [SC / ST (Prevention
of Atrocity) Act, 1989] and Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch, District
Neemuch (MP), whereby they have been convicted for offence under
Sections 341 and 324/34 (on two counts) of the Indian Penal Code, 1908
(herein after referred to as IPC) and each of them has been sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a term of seven days and rigorous
imprisonment for a term of three months with fine of Rs.500/- along with
usual default stipulations.
2. As per the prosecution case, the appellants / accused on 06.08.2013
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2200
2 CRA-9953-2018
intercepted vehicle Tavera Car of complainant (s) Gulab Singh Rathore,
Aashique Hussain, Fajlu and Dinesh Nagar. They assaulted the
complainants hurling filthy abuses on them. Appellant Tulsiram stabbed
Gulab Singh in left side of his stomach and other co-appellants (Lalit
Vartman S/o Nandram Kharol and Sunil Vartman S/o Nandram Kharol)
including Govind Kharol assaulted Gulab Singh with kicks and fists. When
one Ashok Rathore came to intervene, he was also stabbed by Tulsiram in
left side of stomach. The incident was reported to Police Chowki, Nayagaon
where a report number 0x48 of 2013 (Exhibit P/3) was registered and after
that the offence was registered at Crime No.1831 of 2013. The charge sheet
was filed before the Court of concerned Magistrate who committed the case
to the Special Court where case was registered as Special Sessions Trial
No.61 of 2013. Learned trial Court, after completion of the trial, convicted
the appellants for offences Sections 341 and 324/34 (on two counts) of IPC
and sentenced each of them, as mentioned herein above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial
Court has committed factual and legal error in ignoring serious anomalies,
contradictions and omissions present in the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses. He further submits that the judgment has passed on conjectures
and surmises, which does not withstand judicial scrutiny and, therefore,
prays for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence; and also prays for acquitting the appellants from the charges
levelled against them.
4. In the alternative limb of prayer, learned counsel for the appellants
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2200
3 CRA-9953-2018
further submits that the appellants have remained in jail for a period of five
days during trial. The incident took place near about eleven years back on
06.08.2013. The appellants have no criminal antecedents, therefore, a lenient
view may be taken against the appellants by reducing their jail sentence to
the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - State
supporting the impugned judgment, submits that the learned trial Court has
appreciating the evidence in right perspective. The judgment of conviction
and order of sentence is well merited deserves no interference. On these
premises, learned counsel for the respondent - State urges the Court to
dismiss the appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
record.
7. The evidence adduced in support of the allegations with regard to
the offences under Section 341 and 324 / 34 of IPC for causing stab injuries
to Ashok and Gulab Singh is found to be clear, cogent and consistent. The
same is free from any material infirmity or anomaly. The testimony of
complainant Gulab Singh and Ashok is also supported by medical evidence
(Exhibit P/1 and Exhibit P/2) as well as FIR Exhibit P/3, therefore, the
finding of conviction for offence under Sections 341 and 324 / 34 (on two
counts) of IPC cannot be interfered with and is hereby upheld.
8. As regards the sentence, a prayer made on behalf of the appellants
appears to be reasonable. The incident took place on 06.08.2013. The
appellants have faced the trial as well as appeal during this long period of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2200
4 CRA-9953-2018
time. No criminal antecedents are attributed to the appellants. The incident
took place on the spur of the moment. In such circumstances, the period of
jail sentence imposed on the appellants is reduced to the period already
undergone by them, but the fine amount imposed on each of the appellants
for commission of offence under Section 324 / 34 (on two counts) of IPC i.e.
for causing injuries to Gulab Singh Ashok is enhanced from Rs.500/- (rupees
five hundred only) to Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand only), meaning
thereby each of the appellants will have to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/-
(rupees ten thousand only) as fine amount (adjusting the amount already
deposited by them) within a period of thirty days from the date of judgment /
order of this Court, failing which, the appellants will have to suffer rigorous
imprisonment of two months (in default of payment of fine).
9. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the
appellants is hereby affirmed. The jail sentence is reduced to the period
already undergone, as mentioned herein above. The appellants are on bail.
Their bail bonds and personal bonds stand discharged. Let a copy of this
judgment along with the record be sent back forthwith to the concerned trial
Court for compliance and necessary action.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal stands disposed off.
Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed off.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
rcp
