Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arjun Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 28 October, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27150
1 CRA-72-2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 28th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 72 of 2005
ARJUN SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Poonam Chandra Soni - Advocate for the appellants [P-1 and 2].
Shri S.P.S.Gurjar P.L. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.
1. 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 20.12.2004 passed by second Additional Sessions
Judge Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No.08/2004, whereby the appellant no.1
Arjun Singh has been convicted for the offence under Section 326 of IPC
and appellant No.2 Angad Singh has been convicted for the offence under
Section 326/34 of IPC and sentenced both of them to suffer 4 years RI with
fine of Rs.10,000/- each with usual default stipulations.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, complainant Ramveer Singh lodged
a report with respect to the incident that had taken place at about 10.30 PM,
stating that when he was on duty at Manikhera Dam as a gunman, the
appellants-accused came there and tried to snatch his gun and altercation and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27150
2 CRA-72-2005
exchange of hot words took place between them. The complainant objected,
appellant Arjun Singh fired from a mouser gun causing bullet injury in the
right thigh. Matadeen and Devendra were witnessed the incident. The
company manager Shekhar also came on the spot and accused also fired
upon him and ran away from the spot. Accordingly, offence has been
registered.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been
filed against the appellants before JMFC, Shivpuri who committed the case
to the Court of Sessions. Trial Court has framed charges against the appellant
no.1 Arjun Singh for offence under Sections 294 and 307 of IPC and against
appellant no.2 Angad Singh for offence punishable under Section 294 and
307/34 of IPC.
4. Appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence.
5. Prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses, while defence
did not examine any witness.
6. 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.
7. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27150
3 CRA-72-2005
8. Appellants are facing trial since 20 years. During trial, appellant
no.1 Arjun Singh remained in custody from 6.3.2003 to 23.10.2003 and after
conviction, he remained in custody from 20.12.2004 to 06.07.2005 while
appellant No.2 Angad Singh remained in custody during trial from
15.09.2003 to 20.10.2003 and after conviction, he remained in custody from
20.12.2004 to 06.07.2005. 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.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the
prayer and prays for its rejection by supporting the impugned judgment.
10. 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 during trial, appellant no.1 Arjun Singh remained in custody
from 6.3.2003 to 23.10.2003 and after conviction, he remained in custody
from 20.12.2004 to 06.07.2005 while appellant No.2 Angad Singh remained
in custody during trial from 15.09.2003 to 20.10.2003 and after conviction,
he remained in custody from 20.12.2004 to 06.07.2005, 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, 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.
11. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27150
4 CRA-72-2005
12. The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by the
Trial Court is also affirmed.
13. All the pending IA, if any, are also disposed of.
14. 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
Rks
