Madhya Pradesh High Court
Banti vs State Of M.P. on 14 October, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25888
1 CRA-904-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 14th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 904 of 2010
BANTI AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Puran Kumar Kulshreshtha, Public Prosecutor for State.
ORDER
Both the appellants appeared in person. They are duly identified by
their counsel.
This criminal appeal is pending since 2010. Therefore, with the
consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.
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 30.07.2010 passed by 4th Additional Sessions
Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial No.180/2009, whereby the appellant Umesh
has been convicted for the offence under Sections 307/34 and 324 of IPC and
appellant Banti has been convicted for te offence under Section 307/34 and
324/34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer 6 years RI with fine of Rs.5000/- each
and 1 year RI respectively with usual default stipulations.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 16.6.2008 at about 8 PM when
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25888
2 CRA-904-2010
victim Shyam Gupta alongwith his wife Meera was sleeping at his house, at
that time, appellants/accused persons entered into their house. Banti caught
hold of hands and legs of complainant and co-accused Rona with an
intention to kill him fired upon him which hit on his left side of forehead and
blood oozed out. When his wife tried to intervene, then other co-accused
person caught her legs. Appellant Umesh poured acid upon her, due to which
he sustained simple injuries over her back. Thereafter, accused persons fled
away from the spot. Complainant Meera lodged an FIR at P.S. Mehgaon,
District Bhind. Accordingly, offence has been registered.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been
filed against the appellants before JMFC, Mehgaon, District Bhind, who
committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Later on, the matter has been
transferred to 4th Additional Sessions Judge Bhind. Trial Court has framed
charges against the appellants for offence under Sections 307, 324/34 of IPC
upon both the accused persons.
4. 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 7 witnesses, while defence did not examine any
witness.
5. The Trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by
both the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence available on
record, convicted the appellants as mentioned herein above. Being aggrieved
by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellants preferred this
criminal appeal before this Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25888
3 CRA-904-2010
6. 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.
7. The appellants are facing trial since 17 years. During trial,
appellant Banti has suffered incarceration from 23.4.2009 to 17.8.2009 and
appellant Umesh has suffered jail incarceration from 17.4.2009 to 24.2.2010.
After conviction, appellant Umesh remained in custody from 30.7.2011 to
21.9.2011 and appellant Banti remained in custody from 30.7.2010 to
14.12.2010. They are not having any criminal past. Consequently, learned
counsel for the appellants prays for reduction of jail sentence to the period
already undergone by the appellants.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the
prayer and prays for its rejection by supporting the impugned judgment.
9. 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 incarceration, during trial,
appellant Banti has suffered incarceration from 23.4.2009 to 17.8.2009 and
appellant Umesh has suffered jail incarceration from 17.4.2009 to 24.2.2010.
After conviction, appellant Umesh remained in custody from 30.7.2011 to
21.9.2011 and appellant Banti remained in custody from 30.7.2010 to
14.12.2010 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25888
4 CRA-904-2010
sentence to the period already undergone by them. Accordingly, present
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.
10. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bond stand discharged.
11. The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by
the Trial Court is also affirmed.
12. All the pending IA, if any, are also disposed of.
13. 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.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
"R"
