Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ankit Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 June, 2025
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28083
1 CRA-10392-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 27 th OF JUNE, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10392 of 2024
ANKIT MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ankit Saxena - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Hemlata Kshatriya - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Shri Deepak Sakle - Advocate for the complainant/injured.
ORDER
Appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment dated 28.08.2024 passed
by IXth Additional Sessions, Judge, Rewa District-Rewa in ST. No.86 of 2023
whereby, appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of I.P.C. and sentenced
to undergo R.I. for seven years and with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default
stipulations.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submits that that he is not
challenging the conviction part of the judgment. He is only challenging sentence
part of the judgment. It is urged that in the instant case, parties have compromised
the matter and same has been verified by Registrar (J-II). It is also urged during
trial, appellant was in jail from 05.06.2022 to 12.07.2022 and as of now, he is in
jail since 28.08.2024. Therefore, appellant be sentenced with the period already
undergone and with fine as imposed by the trial Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28083
2 CRA-10392-2024
3 . Learned Panel Lawyer for the State submits that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, appellant cannot be sentenced with the period already
undergone. He further submits that trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced
the appellant. No interference is required in the same and appeal filed by the
appellant be dismissed.
4 . Learned counsel for the complainant/injured submits that he has no
objection, if appellant is sentenced with the period already undergone and with
fine as imposed by the trial Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the case.
6 . So far as conviction is concerned, from testimony of Shubham Soni
(PW-1), Ramesh Soni (PW-2), Dr. Neha Sharma (PW-5), Ramprasad Prajapati
(PW-6), S.S. Baghel (PW-8), Fazalhaq Ansari (PW-9), Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P/1),
medical documents (Ex.P/9) to (Ex.P/11), it is clearly evident that at alleged date,
time and place, appellant assaulted injured Shubham Soni with knife and thereby
caused various injuries. Learned trial Court has rightly convicted appellant under
Section 307 of the IPC. No inference is required in the same. Hence, appellant's
conviction under Section 307 of the IPC is affirmed.
7. So far as sentence is concerned, learned trial Court has sentenced
appellant under Section 307 of the IPC with R.I. of 7 years and with fine of
Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation. There are no criminal antecedents of appellant.
Parties have compromised the matter and same has been verified by Registrar (J-
II). Further, during trial, appellant was in jail from 05.06.2022 to 12.07.2022 and
as of now, he is in jail since 28.08.2024.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28083
3 CRA-10392-2024
8. Hence, in view of aforesaid as well as principles of law laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in Pappu Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2000 SC 3633
(2), Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. AIR
2011 SC 1821, Gulab Das and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 10 SCC
765, Murali Vs. State (2021) SCC 726 (3 judge bench) and Tarak Nath Singh &
Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal 1997 (10) SCC 209, ends of justice would be
served, if appellant is sentenced with period already undergone and with fine as
imposed by the trial Court.
9. Resultantly, appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed and appellant
is sentenced under Section 307 of the IPC with period already undergone by him
and with fine as imposed by the trial Court.
10. Copy of judgment be sent immediately to concerned jail for
information and necessary action.
11. Appeal filed by appellant is partly allowed and disposed off
accordingly.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
vai
