Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramji Lal vs State Of M.P. on 31 July, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16176
1 CRA-644-2012
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. 644 of 2012
RAMJI LAL
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Brijendra Singh - Advocate for appellant.
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 06.08.2012 passed by Sessions Judge, District
Guna in Sessions Trial No.255/2011, whereby appellant has been convicted
for offence under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and
sentenced to undergo 6 months' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default
stipulations.
2. Prosecution story, in short, is that on 08.07.2011 at about 12:00 PM,
when complainant Bharat Singh was at his field, at that time, his cattle went
to the field of appellant Ramjilal, then appellant along with other co-accused
persons came there and said that how the cattle have entered in their field
and they started abusing him in filthy language and when the complainant
objected, then appellant Ramjilal hit him on his mouth with a stone and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16176
2 CRA-644-2012
Laxminarayan and Vikram threw him on the field, due to which, he sustained
certain injuries, therefore, he has lodged FIR at Police Station Jamner,
District Guna. MLC of the victim has been conducted by Dr. Mukesh
Sharma and during X-ray, his incisor teeth of upper jaw is found missing.
Accordingly, offence has been registered against the appellant and other co-
accused persons.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
before JMFC, Raghogarh, District Guna, who committed the case to the
Sessions Court. The Trial Court has framed charges against the appellant and
other co-accused persons for offence under Sections 326 r/w 34 of IPC.
4. The appellant and other co-accused persons abjured their guilt and
pleaded complete innocence.
5. Prosecution examined as many as 10 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
the appellant for the offence under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo six months with fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default
stipulations. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the
appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court.
7. During course of the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant
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. The appellant has turned to be 43
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16176
3 CRA-644-2012
years of age and he is facing trial since 14 long years. He has no criminal
past. He has been remained in custody for six days. He has 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 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
appellant, 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 appellant and the nature of
offence and the facts that the appellant has turned to be 43 years of age and
he is facing trial since 14 long years, he has no criminal past and he has
suffered jail incarceration of six days and he has already deposited the fine
amount as imposed by the Trial Court, the purpose would be served in case
the jail sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already
undergone by him. However, the amount of fine is hereby enhanced upto
Rs.2,000/-
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 appellant is reduced to the period already
undergone subject to depositing additional fine amount of Rs.1,000/-, which
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16176
4 CRA-644-2012
shall be deposited before the Trial Court concerned within a period of two
months, failing which the appellant shall suffer jail sentence awarded by the
learned Court below.
12. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.
13. All the pending IA, if any, are also disposed of.
14. Let a copy of this order along with record be sent back to the
concerned Trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
15. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Abhi
