Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Singh vs State Of M.P. on 31 July, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16168
1 CRA-647-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 31st OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 647 of 2012
AJAY SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Brij Kishore Kushwah - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri A.P.S. Tomar - 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 24.07.2012 passed by Special Judge [Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short
"Act, 1989")], District Bhind in Special Case No.08/2009, whereby appellant
No. 1 - Ajay has been convicted under Sections 323, 325/34 of Indian Penal
Code (in short 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo 4 months RI and 6 months RI
with fine of Rs.1000/-, appellant No. 2 - Kamal Singh has been convicted
under Sections 323, 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 4 months RI
and 6 months RI with fine of Rs.1000/- and appellant No. 3 Ramkumar has
been convicted for offence under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC and sentenced
to undergo 4 months RI and 6 months RI with usual default stipulations.
2. Prosecution story, in short, is that on 14.10.2008 at about 09:00 AM,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16168
2 CRA-647-2012
complainant Mayaram, who is a member of Schedule Caste community, was
cutting a tree of Babool, at that time, appellants came there armed with stick,
axe and sickle (hasiya) and abused him and also uttered caste related words
and told that why he was cutting Babool tree, then complainant said that it is
my land, thereafter, appellant Ajay Singh inflicted a blow by means of an axe
on his head and he sustained injury, appellant Kamal Singh gave a blow of
stick on his right rib and when his son Udayveer came there for intervention,
then he was also beaten by appellant - Ramkumar by Hasiya. Narayani, wife
of complainant came there for intervention, then she was also beaten by
appellant - Ajay Singh. Complainant lodged FIR at Police Station Gormi,
District Bhind. MLC of the victim persons have been conducted by Dr.
Dharmendra Singh.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
before JMFC, Mehgaon, District Bhind, who committed the case to the Court
of Special Judge. The Trial Court has framed charges against the appellants
for offence under Sections 294, 506 (Part-II), 323, 324, 324/34, 325, 325/34
of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Act, 1989.
4. The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence.
5. Prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses, while defence did not
examine any witness in his defence.
6. The Trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by both
the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence available on record convicted
and sentenced the appellants for the offence mentioned hereinabove. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellants have
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16168
3 CRA-647-2012
preferred this appeal before this Court.
7. During course of the arguments, learned counsel for the appellants
did not press this criminal appeal on merits and he is only challenging the
final part of the impugned judgment. He confined his arguments only to the
extent of quantum of the sentence only. Appellant No. 1 - Ajay Singh has
turned to be 43 years of age, appellant No. 2 - Kamal Singh has turned to be
75 years of age and appellant No. 3 - Ramkumar @ Bablu has turned to be
49 years of age and they are facing trial since 17 long years. They have no
criminal past. They have been remained in custody for one day. They have
already deposited the fine amount as imposed by the Trial Court, therefore,
learned counsel prays for only reducing the sentence to the period already
undergone by them and prays that fine amount may also be enhanced.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the
prayer and prays for its rejection by supporting the impugned judgment.
9. From perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that no
illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in convicting the
appellants, hence, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Court
below requires no interference and is hereby maintained.
10. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, looking to the
limited prayer made by the counsel for the appellants and the nature of
offence and the facts that appellants No. 1, 2 and 3 have turned to be 43, 75
and 49 of age respectively and they are facing trial since 17 long years, they
have no criminal past and they have suffered jail incarceration of one day
and they have already deposited the fine amount as imposed by the Trial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16168
4 CRA-647-2012
Court, the purpose would be served in case the jail sentence awarded to the
appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the
amount of fine is hereby enhanced upto Rs.2,500/-
11. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The findings of
conviction are hereby maintained with the modification to the extent that the
jail sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already
undergone subject to depositing additional fine amount of Rs.1,500/-, which
shall be deposited before the Trial Court concerned within a period of two
months, failing which the appellants shall suffer jail sentence awarded by the
learned Court below.
12. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged.
13. The order passed by the Trial Court regarding disposal of the
seized property is also hereby affirmed.
14. All the pending IA, if any, are also disposed of.
15. Let a copy of this order along with record be sent back to the
concerned Trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
16. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Abhi
