Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babulal vs State Of M.P. on 27 October, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
CRA NO.903/2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.903 OF 2006
(BABULAL AND OTHERS
Vs.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
SHRI PAWAN VIJAYWARGIYA - ADVOCATE FOR THE
APPELLANTS.
SHRI R.S. YADAV - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE.
SHRI S.N. DUBEY - ADVOCATE FOR THE COMPLAINANT.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 16.10.2025
Delivered on : 27.10.2025
JUDGMENT
Per: ANIL VERMA J.
During pendency of this criminal appeal, appellant No.2
Mangilal and appellant No.9 Satya Narayan have died, therefore, this
appeal stands abated against both of them but appeal is continue
against rest of the accused persons.
2. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'Cr.P.C.') has been preferred
against the impugned judgment dated 2.12.2006 passed by Special
Judge, Madhya Pradesh Dacoity Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Act (in
short MPDVPK Act), Sheopur in Special Case No.01/2005, whereby
the appellants Babulal, Hukum Singh, Ranvir, Ramkaran, Siyaram
and Shivcharan have been convicted for the offence under
Sections148, 304(1)/149 and 308/149 of IPC and sentenced to suffer
two years RI with fine of Rs.2000/-, seven years RI with fine of
Rs.5000/-, seven years RI with fine of Rs.5000/- with usual default
stipulations while appellant Jagdish has been convicted for the offence
under Sections 148, 304(1) and 308/149 of IPC and sentenced to
suffer two years RI with fine of Rs.2000/-, ten years RI with fine of
Rs.5000/-, seven years RI with fine of Rs.5000/- with usual default
stipulations.
3. Prosecution story, in short, is that in the morning of 11.10.2004
Buta Singh along with his brother Bhola Singh carrying a licensed
firearm (12 bore) were heading towards SDM Court on their bike and
while crossing the house of the accused, they saw Jagdish sitting on
his tractor, they both stopped and enraged out of the previous enmity
between them, Buta Singh fired two shots at Jagdish, out of which,
one bullet dodged Jagdish and hit the wall behind him. The second
shot misfired, in retaliation as to safeguard himself, the accused
Jagdish struck them with his farm tractor and hearing the commotion
the villagers gathered and an altercation took place, which turned into
a free fight. Accordingly, offence has been registered.
4. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed
before the Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Sheopur. The Trial Court
has framed the charges under Sections 148, 302/149 in alternate 302,
307/149 in alternative 307 and 396 of IPC and Section 11/13 of
MPDVPK Act.
5. Appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence.
Prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses while defence has
examined 2 witnesses in their defence.
6. The Trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by
both the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence available on
record convicted the appellants for the offence under Sections 148,
304(1)/149, 308/149 of IPC and sentence as mentioned herein above.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the
appellants preferred this appeal.
7. During the course of 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 have faced
trial for long 21 years. The appellants Babulal, Hukum Singh, Jagdish,
Ranvir, Ramkaran, Siyaram and Shivcharan have now turned aged
about 68 years, 68 years, 58 years, 60 years, 63 years, 81 and 43 years
respectively. During Trial as well as after conviction, appellant
Jagdish has suffered three years six months incarceration, appellant
Jagdish has suffered three years six months incarceration, appellant
Babulal has suffered two years eight months and 16 days
incarceration, appellant Hukum has suffered two years five months
incarceration, appellant Ranvir has suffered two years ten months and
15 dyas incarceration, appellant Ramkaran has suffered two years
eight months and 02 days incarceration, appellant Siyaram has
suffered two years six months incarceration, appellant Shivcharan has
suffered two years eight months and 18 days incarceration. They have
already suffered jail incarceration for sufficient period. They are not
having any criminal past. Leaned 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 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 order regarding fine amount is
hereby affirmed.
10. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds 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.
14. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
(alok)
