[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yeshwant vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14228
1 CRA-2958-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 18th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2958 of 2011
YESHWANT AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. Rakesh Sagar - Advocate for appellants.
Ms. Vineeta Sharma - Panel Lawyer for State.
JUDGMENT
Appellant No.1 - Yeshwant is present in person. He is duly identified
by his counsel. His presence be marked.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally
heard.
This appeal has been filed by the present appellants under Section
374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2011 passed by the
learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, District Sagar (M.P.) in
Sessions Trial No.290 of 2011 whereby the appellant No.1 has been
convicted under Sections 324/34 and 326/34 of the IPC and sentenced to
undergo six months RI and fine of Rs.500/- and two years RI and fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of fine, additional R.I. for one month whilst the
appellant No.2 has been convicted under Sections 324/34 and 326 of the IPC
and sentenced to undergo six months RI and fine of Rs.500/- and two years
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14228
2 CRA-2958-2011
RI and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of fine, additional R.I. for one month.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Kallu
Ladiya (P.W.1), was residing in Village Beldhana and was working as a
labourer. On 13.01.2011 at about 07:00 PM, his brother Ratiram @ Tulsiram
was playing ball near their house when he entered into an altercation with
Ramsevak, a boy from the same locality. Thereafter, Ramsevak went home
and informed his brothers namely Chetram and Yashwant, about the incident.
It is alleged that thereafter accused Chetram arrived at Kallu's house armed
with an axe, while accused Yashwant and Ramsevak accompanied him
carrying sticks. They allegedly abused and threatened the complainant party.
When Kallu and Mukesh objected to the abusive language, accused Chetram
allegedly assaulted Mukesh with an axe on his head, causing bleeding
injuries. When Kallu intervened to rescue him, Chetram is said to have
inflicted a blow with the axe on Kallu's left arm. It is further alleged that
accused Yashwant assaulted Kallu with a stick and Ramsevak assaulted
Ratiram @ Tulsiram with a stick on his left wrist. It is stated that Nathuram
(P.W.5) and Paramlal (P.W.6) intervened, whereupon the accused persons
fled from the spot after extending threats to kill them. On the basis of the
report lodged by Kallu at Police Station Deori, District Sagar (M.P.), Crime
No. 50/2011 was registered under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506 Part-II read
with Section 34 of the IPC. During investigation, the injured persons
Mukesh and Ratiram @ Tulsiram were sent for medical examination. Dr.
B.C. Jain (P.W.4), posted at Community Health Centre, Deori, examined the
injured Kallu, Mukesh, and Ratiram @ Tulsiram and prepared medical
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14228
3 CRA-2958-2011
reports Ex.P/7, Ex.P/8, and Ex.P/9. Subsequently, Dr. Jinesh Diwakar
(P.W.9) conducted an X-ray examination of Mukesh's head and as per report
Ex.P/12, found a frontal fracture in the left parietal region.
3. During the course of investigation, the arrest of accused Chetram and
Yeshwant was effected. Statements of witnesses Mukesh, Nathuram,
Paramlal, and Ratiram @ Tulsiram were also recorded. Upon completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent criminal Court,
which, on its turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions and from
where it was received by the trial Court for trial. The learned trial Judge on
going through the evidence available in the charge-sheet framed charges
against accused Chetram under Sections 294, 326, 324/34 and 506 (Part-II)
of the IPC and against accused Yashwant under sections 294, 326/34, 324/34
and 506 (Part-II) of the IPC and against both the accused under section
323/34 of the IPC.
4. The accused have denied having committed the crime and have
requested for trial. In their defence, they say that they are innocent and have
been falsely implicated.
5. In the case, the complainant Kallu (P.W.1), Mukesh (P.W.3) and
Ratiram @ Tulsiram (P.W.10) being minors, the application for permission
of compromise presented on behalf of their guardian mother Santosh Rani on
11.11.2011 and subsequently as per the compromise application presented,
the accused Chetram and Yashwant have been acquitted from the charges
under Sections 294, 323/34 and 506 (Part-II) of the IPC. The trial of accused
Chetram has been continued in respect of the remaining offences under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14228
4 CRA-2958-2011
Sections 326 and 324/34 of the IPC and the trial of accused Yashwant has
been continued under Sections 326/ 34 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many
as 09 witnesses, namely Kallu Ladiya (PW-1), Santoshrani (PW-2), Mukesh
Ahirwar (PW-3), Dr. B.C. Jain (PW-4), Nathuram (PW-5), Paramlal @
Parmali (PW-6), Head Constable Kunwar Singh (PW-7), K.S. Thakur (PW-
8), Jinesh Diwakar (PW-9) and Tulsiram (P.W.10) placed the documents
Ex.P-1 to P-12 and Ex.D-1 on record. The appellants did not examine any
witness in their defence.
7. The learned trial Judge after appreciating and marshalling the evidence
vide impugned judgment has convicted the appellant No.1 for the
commission of offence punishable has been convicted under Sections 324/34
and 326/34 of the IPC and the appellant No.2 for the commission of offence
punishable under Sections 324/34 and 326 of the IPC and passed the order of
sentence as mentioned above. In this manner, the present appeal has been
filed by the appellants.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the
appellants are not challenging their conviction on merits and confines the
present appeal only to the question of quantum of sentence. It is further
submitted that the incident in question is of the year 2011. The appellant
No.1 Yeshwant was about 22 years of age and appellant No.2 Chetram was
about 25 years at the time of the offence respectively. As per the certificate
issued under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant No.1 Yeshwant
remained in custody from 14.03.2011 to 21.03.2011 and 11.11.2011 to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14228
5 CRA-2958-2011
30.11.2011 i.e. twenty seven days and appellant No.2 Chetram remained in
custody from 14.03.2011 to 22.03.2011 i.e. eight days days during the course
of trial. It is further submitted that a compromise was entered into between
the complainant and the accused persons. Since the offence under Sections
324 and 326 of the IPC are non-compoundable in nature, the learned trial
Court has allowed the compromise only in respect of the offences punishable
under Sections 294, 323/34 and 506 (Part-II) of the IPC, as recorded in
paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment. The appellants are first offenders
and have no criminal antecedents, as noted in paragraph 21 of the impugned
judgment. They have been facing the ordeal of trial since 2011. Throughout
the trial as well as during the pendency of the present appeal, they have
remained cooperative and have not misused the liberty granted to
them. Having regard to the aforesaid fact, factum of compromise between the
parties, present age of the appellants, the absence of any criminal
antecedents, the prolonged pendency of the proceedings since 2011 spanning
about 15 years and their cooperative conduct during trial, it is prayed that the
sentence be reduced to the period already undergone, with a suitable
enhancement of the fine amount.
9. Learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment;
however, he raises no objection to the appeal being decided on the question
of sentence.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for both the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14228
6 CRA-2958-2011
learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence available on record
and has rightly convicted the appellant No.1 under Sections 324/34 and
326/34 of the IPC and the appellant No.2 under Sections 324/34 and 326 of
the IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of the present appellants under the
aforesaid sections calls for no interference.
12. As regards sentence, having regard to the attending facts and
circumstances of the case and taking into consideration factum of
compromise, tender age of appellants at the time of incident, their
cooperative conduct during the course of trial, the fact that they are the first-
time offenders, the period of custody of 27 days and 8 days respectively
already undergone by them, and the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the appellants, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice
would be met if the substantive jail sentence is reduced to the period already
undergone, while suitably enhancing the fine amount.
13. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of the appellant No.1
under Sections 324/34 and 326/34 of the IPC, the sentence of imprisonment
is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the fine is enhanced
from Rs.500/- to Rs.2,500/- for offence under Section 324/34 of the IPC and
from 1,000/- to Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section 326/34 of the IPC.
Similarly, while affirming the conviction of appellant No.2 under Sections
324/34 and 326 of the IPC, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the
period already undergone by him and the fine is enhanced from Rs.500/- to
Rs.2,500/- for offence under Section 324/34 of the IPC and from 1,000/- to
Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section 326 of the IPC. The enhanced fine
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14228
7 CRA-2958-2011
amount shall be deposited by the present appellants within a period of two
months from today, failing which they shall undergo the sentence as
originally awarded by the learned trial Court. Any fine amount already
deposited shall be adjusted towards the enhanced fine. The entire amount of
fine so deposited shall be paid to the complainant Kallu Ladiya (PW-1) as
compensation under Section 395 of the BNSS, 2023.
14. The present appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand
discharged.
15. The order of the trial Court pertaining to disposal of the property is
hereby affirmed.
16. Let record of the trial Court along with a copy of this order be sent
back to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
17. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
THK
