Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shibbu vs State Of M.P. on 18 September, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22978
1 CRA-192-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 18th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 192 of 2006
SHIBBU AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Ayush Saxena Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Anurag Sharma Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
ORDER
1. Appellant No.2 Brajendra Singh S/o Janved Singh has expired, therefore,
his name was ordered to be deleted vide order dated 12.11.2014. Hence, this
appeal stands abated on his behalf.
2. Appellants No.1,3 and 4 have preferred this criminal appeal under
Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.") being aggrieved by
the impugned judgment dated 20.02.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Sevdha District Datia in Sessions Trial No.64/2004, whereby appellants No.1
Shibbu and 3 Balla have convicted for the offence under Sections 307/34 and 323
of IPC whereas, appellant No.4 Kailash has been convicted under section 307 and
323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs.200/- each
respectively with usual default stipulations.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 22.05.2004 at about 5 PM, when
injured Brajesh, Kallu, Balveer and Rambahadur were returning from Hanuman
temple near Sindh river, appellants armed with deadly weapons intercepted them
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22978
2 CRA-192-2006
and told that they should collect the sand from the limits of district Datia. When
they objected, appellant Kailash inflicted a spade blow on the head of
Laxminarayan due to which he fell down and became unconscious, appellant
Shibhbu inflicted a blow by spade on the left shoulder of Brajesh and Balla
inflicted a saria blow at his left knee. At the instance of injured, Dehati Nalishi was
recorded. Thereafter, on the basis of said Dehati Nalishi, the FIR was registered
and accordingly, the offence has been registered against the accused person.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the
JMFC, Seondha District Datia, who has committed the case to the Court of
Session, Datia. The Trial Court has framed charges under Sections 307, 307/34,
323 and 323/34 of IPC have been framed against appellants.
4. All the accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded complete
innocence. Prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses, while defence
examine only three witnesses.
5. The Trial Court after completion of trial and scrutinizing the evidence
available on record convicted the appellants for the offences mentioned
above. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, appellants have preferred this appeal
before this Court.
6. During course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants did not
press this criminal appeal on merits and he is assailing the final part of the
impugned judgment. He confined his arguments on the point of sentence only. The
appellants are facing trial for long 21 years. During trial, the appellant Kailash has
suffered jail incarceration from 11.06.2004 to 18.08.2004 (two months seven
days) and after conviction, from 20.02.2006 to 07.07.2007 (total one year, five
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22978
3 CRA-192-2006
months and 17 days) and appellant Shibbu and Balla remained in jail during trial
from 11.06.2004 to 06.07.2004 (total 25 days) and after conviction from
20.02.2006 to 17.04.2006 (one month and 27 days). They have now, turned to be
older persons. They are not having any criminal past.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/state opposed the prayer
and prayed for its rejection by supporting the impugned judgment.
8. 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 upon the appellants is
hereby affirmed.
9. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
10. The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by the Trial
Court is also affirmed.
11. Pending IA, if any, are also disposed of.
12. Let a copy of this order along with record be sent back to the concerned Trial
Court for information and necessary compliance.
13. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Rks
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22978
4 CRA-192-2006
