Madhya Pradesh High Court
Roshan Singh vs State Of M.P. on 3 July, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13556
1 CRA-383-2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 3 rd OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 383 of 2008
ROSHAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri O.P.Mathur - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Yogesh Parashar - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
ORDER
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 13.5.2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in
S.T.No.45/2007, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the
offence under Sections 325/34 and 327 of IPC and sentenced to suffer three
years RI with fine of Rs.250/- (two counts) with usual default stipulations.
2. Prosecution story, in short, is that on 17.1.2007 at about 9:30 PM
when the complainant Kalla was returning his home from Shivpuri at that
time both the appellants intercepted him and abused in a filthy language and
demanded Rs.100/- for consuming liquor. When the complainant denied,
then Vinod hit him on his right leg, due to which he sustained injuries,
appellant Roshan also beaten him by fists. When Narendra Sharma came
there for intervention, then he was also beaten by the appellants. FIR has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13556
2 CRA-383-2008
been lodged at Police Station Tendua, District Shivpuri. MLC of both the
victim Kalla and Narendra has been conducted by Dr. H.V. Sharma and as
per x-ray report, fracture has been found in the fibula bone of left leg of the
complainant Narendra. Accordingly, the offence has been registered against
the appellants/accused persons.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
before JMFC, Kolaras, District Shivpuri who has framed the charges under
Sections 325, 327, 329 and 504 of IPC against the appellants.
4. Appellants abjured their guilt and took a plea that they have been
falsely implicated in the matter.
5. Prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses while the
appellants have not examined any witness in their defrence.
6. The Trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by both
the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence available on record acquitted
the appellants for offence under Sections 504 and 329 of IPC but convicted
both the appellants for the offence as mentioned hereinabove. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellants preferred
this appeal before this Court.
7. During pendency of the present appeal, two joint applications under
Section 320(1) of CrPC and 320(2) of CrPC have been filed on behalf of
both the parties. Factum of compromise has been duly verified by the
Principal Registrar of this Court and as per his verification report, both the
parties have willfully without any fear and coercion entered into the said
compromise.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13556
3 CRA-383-2008
8. Offence under Section 325/34 of IPC is compoundable offence,
therefore, both the compromise applications are partly allowed and on the
basis of aforesaid compromise, both the appellants are acquitted for the
offence under Sections 329, 325/34 of IPC. The offence under Section 327
of IPC is non-compoundable offence, therefore, compromise cannot be
recorded for offence under Section 327 of IPC.
9. During course of the arguments, learned counsel for the appellants
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 and prayed that the matter has been amicably settled between
both the parties. All the appellants have faced trial for long 18 years. During
trial, appellants remained in custody for the period of 13 days and from the
date of conviction, i.e., 13.5.2008 till 9.6.2008, they are continuously in
custody. They already suffered jail incarceration for sufficient period. They
are not having any criminal past. Consequently, leaned counsel for the
appellants prays for reduction of jail sentence to the period already
undergone by the appellants.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the
prayer and prays for its rejection by supporting the impugned judgment.
11. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the
record, submissions of learned counsel for the appellants appear to be just
and proper. Although the offence under Section 327 of IPC is not
compoundable offence, but it is settled position of law that while awarding
the sentence, factum of compromise may be taken into consideration.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13556
4 CRA-383-2008
12. Appellants have suffered incarceration for the period of about one
month and ten days and they are not having any criminal antecedents,
therefore, it will be appropriate to partly allow the appeal by affirming the
conviction of the appellants, however, reducing the jail sentence to the period
already undergone by them. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed by
maintaining the conviction of the appellants, but reducing the jail sentence to
the period already undergone by them.
13. Both the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged.
14. The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by the
Trial Court is also affirmed.
15. All the pending IA are also disposed of.
16. 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.
17. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
(alok)
