Bharat Singh vs State Of M.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 1124 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Bharat Singh vs State Of M.P. on 3 July, 2025

Author: Anil Verma

Bench: Anil Verma

           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13576




                                                         1                            CRA-350-2008
                          IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT GWALIOR
                                                    BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                               ON THE 3rd OF JULY, 2025
                                          CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 350 of 2008
                                            BHARAT SINGH AND OTHERS
                                                     Versus
                                                 STATE OF M.P.
                         Appearance:
                               Shri F.A. Shah - Advocate for the appellants.

                               Shri Anurag Sharma, Public Prosecutor for 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 11.04.2008 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), District Shivpuri (MP) in Special Sessions Trial No.151/2006, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 323 (2 count) of Indian Penal Code (in short

'IPC') and sentenced to undergo 3 months RI with fine of Rs.250/- each and appellants Bharat and Satpal have been convicted for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 months RI with fine of Rs.250/- each with usual default stipulation.

2. Prosecution story, in short, is that on 20.06.2006 at about 02:30 PM, when complainant Tripurari Dhakad went to Ration Shop, at that

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13576

2 CRA-350-2008 time, appellant Bharat Singh was sitting on the ration shop. When complainant demanded his ration card back, then Bharat Singh denied him and grabbed his collar and committed marpeet with him. When Kedari and Sumran came there for intervention, then other appellants Satpal, Lajjeram and co-accused Sitaram also abused them in filthy language and committed marpeet with them. Bharat Singh and Sitaram by Katta and gun fired also. The incident was witnessed by Kamma and Shivnandan. The appellants threatened the victim persons for life. On the same day, complainant Tripurari lodged FIR at Police Station Pohari. MLC of both the victim persons were conducted by Dr. R.K. Shakya. Accordingly, the offence has been registered against the

appellants/accused persons.

3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the appellants before JMFC, Shivpuri, who committed the case to the Court of Special Judge. The Trial Court has framed charges under Sections 323 or 323/34 (3 count), 294 and 336 of IPC upon appellant and under Sections 323 (3 count) or 323/34 (3 count) and 294 of IPC upon appellants Satpal and Lajjeram.

4. Appellants abjured their guilt and took a plea that they have been falsely implicated in the matter due to previous enmity. However, they have not examined any defence witness in their defence. The prosecution has also examined as many as 8 witnesses.

5. The Trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13576

3 CRA-350-2008 both the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence available on record convicted the appellants for the offences as mentioned herein above. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellants preferred this appeal before this Court.

6 . 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 only to the extent of quantum of the sentence only. They are not having any criminal past. The appellants have already deposited the fine amount as imposed by the Trial Court, therefore, he prays for only reducing the sentence to the fine amount as imposed by the Trial Court which has already been deposited by them.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and prays for its rejection by supporting the impugned judgment.

8. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, submissions of learned counsel for the appellants appear to be just and proper, therefore, it will be appropriate to partly allow the appeal by affirming the conviction of the appellants, however, reducing the jail sentence to the fine amount. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is partly allowed by maintaining the conviction of the appellants, but reducing the jail sentence to the fine amount already deposited by the appellants before the Trial Court.

9. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13576

4 CRA-350-2008

10. All the pending IA, if any, are also disposed of.

11. 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.

12. Certified copy as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE

Abhi