[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak @ Deepu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29409
1 CRA-8612-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 16th OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8612 of 2019
DEEPAK @ DEEPU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prem Narayan Verma - Amicus curiae for the appellant.
Ms Seema Jaiswal - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4810 of 2025
BABU @ JAGDISH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prem Narayan Verma - Amicus Curiae for the appellant.
Ms Seema Jaiswal - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Criminal Appeal No.8612 of 2019 and Criminal Appeal No.4810 of
2025 have been filed by the appellants, namely, Deepak @ Deepu and Babu
@ Jagdish under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.03.2019 and
25.04.2025 respectively passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal
(M.P.) in S.T.No.677/2012 whereby both the accused/appellants have been
convicted under Sections 326/34 (two counts) and 323/34 (two counts) of
IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3-3 years with fine of Rs.2000-2000
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29409
2 CRA-8612-2019
and R.I. for 1-1 year with fine of Rs.1000-1000/- respectively with default
stipulations.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that complainant Chandrakala
resides in slum No. 1, 52 Quarters, Panchsheel Nagar, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal.
Her younger son, Purushottam, lives with his family in Ashoka Garden. The
accused, Babu, Deepu, and Golu, live next door. On June 13, 2012, at 10:30
PM, Complainant Chandrakala was sitting outside her house with her
daughter-in-law, Amrapali, and daughter, Shilpa. When her neighbor,
accused Babu, was drunk and began abusing them, they went inside. The
Complainant called her son, Purushottam, on his mobile phone. When
Purushottam arrived, the Complainant locked the door and began to confront
him. At that very moment, the three accused, Babu, Deepu, and Golu, armed
with iron rods and sticks, entered the Complainant's door, kicked it, and
began abusing her mother and sister. When Anand refused, accused Babu hit
him on the head with a rod. Deepu hit Anand with a rod which hit his jaw.
Golu hit him on the left hand with a stick. When Purushottam came to rescue
him, all three accused started hitting him too, resulting in injuries to his head,
right eyebrow, right comb and left hand. Complainant's daughter-in-law
Amrapali and the girl Shilpa tried to save them, they were also beaten up.
When the complainant screamed, the three accused said that they had let
them go today but would kill them next time. The accused Babu had been
abusing them for three to four days. After the complainant left the four
injured persons for treatment at 1250 hopital, a First Information Report
(FIR) was registered on the basis of oral information given at the Police
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29409
3 CRA-8612-2019
Station, TT Nagar, Bhopal, under sections 452, 294, 323, 324, 506, and 34 of
IPC. During the investigation, the injured persons were medically examined
and the statements of the complainants were recorded. The memorandum
statements of the accused were recorded and the iron rods and bamboo poles
were seized, and a query report was taken. The accused were arrested.
3. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The
accused persons denied the crime and sought a trial. .
4. The learned trial Judge on going through the evidence available in
the charge sheet framed charges against appellants for the offence punishable
under Sections 294, 326 in the alternative 326/34 (two counts), 323 in the
alternative 323/34 (two counts), 458, 460, 506 Part-II of IPC and Section
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, which they denied and
claimed for the trial.
5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as
many as 05 witnesses, namely, Smt Chandrakala (PW-1), Shilpa Wankhede
(PW-2), Amrapali Wagde (PW-3), Anand Wagde (PW-4), Purshottam
Wagde (PW-5), Sunil Nananware (PW-6), Dr. U.D. Saxena (PW-7), Vinod
Deshbrathar (PW-8), Ramingh Parihar (PW-9), Dr. D.K. Jain (PW-10), Abid
Qureshi (PW-11), M.P. Sharma (PW-12), Dr. Mohan Lakhole (PW-13),
C.K.Sirame (PW-14) and Dr. Mukesh Chandani (PW-15) and placed
Ex.P/1 to P/16 and Ex.D/1 to D/4 the documents on record.
6. The learned trial Judge after appreciating and marshalling the
evidence has convicted under Sections 326/34 (two counts) and 323/34 (two
counts) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3-3 years with fine of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29409
4 CRA-8612-2019
Rs.2000-2000 and R.I. for 1-1 year with fine of Rs.1000-1000/- respectively
with default stipulations. In this manner, the present appeals have been filed
by appellants.
7. It is submitted that he is not pressing the appeal on merits and
pressing it only on the point of sentence. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the present appellants that the present appellant - Deepak @ Deepu has
suffered the actual jail sentence of 08 months and 24 days as per custody
report dated 01.11.2025. Accused/appellant - Babu @ Jagdish as per
certificate under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. has suffered custody of 126 days and
after passing of the judgment, he is in continuous custody. It is also
submitted that the incident is of the year 2012. At that time, appellant -
Deepak @ Deepu was 25 years of age and appellant -Babu @ Jagdish was 21
years of age. They also suffered the agony of trial since 2012. Appellant -
Deepak @ Deepu is the first offender as per para 54 of the impugned
judgment dated 13.09.2019 and appellant Babu @ Jagdish is the first
offender as per para 86 of the impugned judgment dated 25.04.2025.
Therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence may be reduced to the period
already undergone by them, though on the point of fine, the Court may pass
any justified order.
8. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment
but he has no objection on deciding the appeal on the point of sentence.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal
of the record, it is found that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29409
5 CRA-8612-2019
evidence on record and rightly convicted the appellants under Sections
326/34 (two counts) and 323/34 (two counts) of IPC. Therefore, findings of
conviction for the aforesaid offences are upheld.
11. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of
the case; evidence on record; taking into account the age of accused/
appellants Deepak @ Deepu and Babu @ Jagdish, who were 25 and 21 years
of age respectively at the time of commission of offence; accused/ appellant
-Deepak @ Deepu has suffered the actual jail sentence of 08 months and 24
days as per custody report dated 01.11.2025 and appellant - Babu @ Jagdish
as per certificate under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. has suffered custody of 126
days and after passing of the judgment, he is in continuous custody;
appellant - Deepak @ Deepu is the first offender as per para 54 of the
impugned judgment dated 13.09.2019 and appellant Babu @ Jagdish is the
first offender as per para 86 of the impugned judgment dated
25.04.2025; they have been facing agony of trial since 2012, this Court is of
the view that the ends of justice would meet if while reducing the jail
sentence of appellants to the period already undergone by them, the fine
amount is enhanced from Rs.2000-2000/- to Rs.10,000-10,000/- for offence
under Section 326/34 of IPC and fine amount of Rs.1000-1000/- is
maintained for the offence under Section 323/34 of IPC.
12. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of appellants -
Deepak @ Deepu and Babu @ Jagdish under Sections 326/34 (two counts)
and 323/34 (two counts) of IPC, jail sentences of appellants -Deepak @
Deepu and Babu @ Jagdish are reduced to the period already undergone by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29409
6 CRA-8612-2019
them and fine amount is enhanced from Rs.2000-2000/- to Rs.10,000-
10,000/- for offence under Section 326/34 of IPC and fine amount of
Rs.1000-1000/- is maintained for the offence under Section 323/34 of IPC,
which shall be deposited by them within a period of 60 days from today.
The fine amount, if any already deposited by the appellants be adjusted
against the aforesaid amount of fine. The entire amount of fine be paid to the
complainant as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
13. The appellants -Deepak @ Deepu is on bail, his bail bonds shall
stand discharged. Appellant Babu @ Jagdish is in jail, he be released
forthwith if not required in any other case. However, it is clarified that if fine
amount as quantified by this Court is not deposited within a period of 60
days from today, they would surrender themselves to serve the entire jail
sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.
14. The order of the Trial Court pertaining to disposal of the
property is hereby affirmed.
15. Let record of the Trial Court along with copy of this order be
sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and necessary
compliance.
16. With the aforesaid, both the appeals stand disposed of.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
DV
