Madhya Pradesh High Court
Udal Singh vs State Of M.P. on 10 October, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25567
1 CRA-844-2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 10th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 844 of 2009
MAHENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Prasun Maheshwari - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Puran Kumar Kulshreshtha - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 874 of 2009
UDAL SINGH
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Prasun Maheshwari - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Puran Kumar Kulshreshtha - Additional Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
ORDER
By a common order, both the appeals shall be decided as they arise out
of the same incident.
2. Appellant No.6 Diwan Singh in CRA No.844/2009 appeared in
person. He is duly identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25567
2 CRA-844-2009
3. 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 30.11.2009 passed by the Fifth Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Morena in Case No.06/2007, whereby the
appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 324/149,
323/149 (two counts) and 148 of IPC and sentenced to suffer two years RI
with fine of Rs.1000/-, six months RI with fine of Rs.500/- and three years
RI with fine of Rs.1000/-, with usual default stipulations.
4. Appellant No.1 Mahendra Singh in CRA No.844/2009 has died
during pendency of this criminal appeal on 9.8.2015, therefore, this criminal
appeal is abated against appellant No.1 Mahendra Singh .
5. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.12.2003 at about 8:50 PM
when the complainant Ramnaresh Singh Gurjar in front of his house was
standing with his brother Ram, at that time, appellants along with other co-
accused persons came there and they were started abusing in filthy language.
Munna and Udal Singh armed with stick, Ranvir was having Bhala. Ranvir
inflicted Bhala on the leg of Ram Akhtyar and Munna and Udal inflicted
injury by means of stick on the back of Ramnaresh. Accused persons also
pelted stones on them, due to which, Seema also sustained injury. The
incident was witnessed by Atendra Singh, Shivram and Bijjo. Complainant
Ramnaresh Singh lodged an FIR at Police Station Noorabad, District
Morena. Accordingly, offence has been registered.
6. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been
filed against the appellants before JMFC, Morena, who committed the case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25567
3 CRA-844-2009
to the Court of Sessions. Later on, the matter has been transferred to 5th
Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Morena. The Trial Court has framed
charges against the appellants for offence under Sections 324/149, 323/149,
336, 506 Part-II, 323 in alternative 323/149 and 148 of IPC.
7. Appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence by
stating that they have been falsely implicated in the matter. Prosecution has
examined as many as 07 witnesses while defence did not examine any
witness.
8. The Trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by both
the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence available on record acquitted
both the appellants for offence under Sections 336 and 506 Part-II of IPC,
but convicted them for offence under Sections 324/149, 323/149 (two
counts) and 148 of IPC and sentence as mentioned herein above. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellants preferred
this appeal before this Court.
9. 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 on the point of
sentence only. The appellants are facing trial since 22 years. During trial,
appellants have suffered incarceration from 18.2.2004 to 25.2.2004 i.e. about
08 days. They have already suffered jail incarceration for sufficient period.
They are not having any criminal past. Consequently, leaned counsel for the
appellants prays for reduction of jail sentence to the period already
undergone by the appellants.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25567
4 CRA-844-2009
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the
prayer and prays for its rejection by supporting the impugned judgment.
11. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the
record, submissions of learned counsel for the appellants appear to be just
and proper and appellants have already suffered sufficient incarceration and
conviction has not been challenged by the appellants, therefore, it will be
appropriate to partly allow the appeal by affirming the conviction of the
appellants, however, reducing the jail sentence to the period already
undergone by them. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed by maintaining
the conviction of the appellants, but reducing the jail sentence to the period
already undergone by the appellants. The fine amount imposed by the Trial
Court is hereby affirmed.
12. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bond stand discharged.
13. The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by the
Trial Court is also affirmed.
14. All the pending IA, if any, are also disposed of.
15. 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.
16. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Abhi
