Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ballu Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56423
1 CRA-743-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 10th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 743 of 2012
BALLU YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri N. P. Rathore - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Anil Upadhyay - Panel Lawyer for respondent.
ORDER
This is appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. arising out of
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.3.2012, passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No. 79/2008, whereby the appellants have
been convicted under section 436/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 3
years RI with fine of Rs.5000/- each, with default stipulation.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 21.12.07, Bhagchandra Rai was
working on his plot near Gulehti Nala in Lalpur Haar village and was
residing there with his family in a makeshift hut. He had stacked soybean
crop bundles near the hut. At around 5:30 pm, the accused arrived at the hut
and started drinking liquor near the soybean bundles. When Bedilal (P.W.3)
and his wife Mundobai (P.W.2) tried to stop them, the three accused abused
them with obscene language and threatened to kill them. They also set fire to
the soybean crop, which destroyed the entire crop and the hut. The fire was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56423
2 CRA-743-2012
noticed by villagers, including Rodilal Rai and Guddu Rai, who tried to
extinguish it, but the crop, hut, and belongings were completely destroyed.
Bedilal (P.W.3) filed a complaint at the Charagva police station, 25 km
away, stating that the accused had caused him a loss of one lakh rupees by
setting fire to his crop.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellants
have preferred this criminal appeal on several grounds but during the course
of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants did not press this appeal on
merits and not assail the finding part of judgment. He confines his arguments
on the point of sentence. During the pendency of the appeal, compromise
entered into between the appellants Ballu Yadav and Thundal Barman @
Ramdas with the land owner Bhagchand Rai. Further keeping in view the
fact that the appellant was facing the trial before the concerned Court since
2007, the appellants have suffered approximately 20 days and 23 days
custody period respectively, the sentence of the appellants be reduced to the
period already undergone or as the Court may deems fit.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. He
supported the judgment and order by submitting that there is clear evidence
against the appellant, therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. In context of contentions raised by learned counsel for the
appellants, the case of prosecution has been examined. Although, learned
counsel for the appellant has confined his arguments to the point of sentence
and only on as first appellate Court, this Court is bound to examine the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56423
3 CRA-743-2012
prosecution case before affirming the conviction.
6. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 07 witnesses.
They are Pramod Kumar Vishwakarma (P.W.1), Mundo Bai (P.W.2 wife of
complainant), Bedilal (P.W.3 complainant), Rodilal Rai (P.W.4), Umendra
Rai (P.W.5), Kaliram (P.W.6) and Sunil Nema (P.W.7). Whereas, the
accused persons have not examined any witness in their defense.
Complainant Bedilal (PW-3), Mundo Bai (PW-2) are the eyewitnesses of
the incident. They have specifically narrated that the appellants have burnt
the crops and hut. Their examination of chief has not been controverted in
their cross-examination. The case of prosecution is well supported by the
eye-witnesses as well as other prosecution witnesses.
7. Since the prosecution case has been well supported by the eye-
witnesses and other police officials, the finding of conviction of the Trial
Court has no infirmity and illegality, hence, finding of conviction of appeal
is liable to be and is hereby confirmed.
8. So far as the sentence is concerned, after hearing learned counsel
for the parties and taking into consideration that the incident had taken place
in the year 2007 and the appellants are having no criminal past, they have
already suffered substantial jail sentence of 20 days and 23 days
respectively, after confirming the conviction, the jail sentence is required to
be reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount
from Rs. 5000/- to Rs.15000/-.
9. In upshot, this appeal stands partly allowed and conviction under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56423
4 CRA-743-2012
Section 436 of IPC against the appellant is hereby affirmed while the
sentence of three years is reduced to the period already undergone by
enhancing the fine amount from Rs.5000/- to Rs. 15000/- which shall be paid
by the appellant within 60 days from the date of the order. If fine amount is
paid, out of the fine amount Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as
compensation. The fine amount, if already deposited as well as the
compensation amount paid to the complainant, if any, shall be adjusted. In
default of payment of fine amount within the stipulated period, the appellants
shall suffer the sentence as awarded by the trial Court. The bail bond of
the appellants will be discharged after depositing the fine amount.
10. The order of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized
property, if any, stands confirmed.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
necessary compliance.
12. With the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
mrs. mishra
