[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Govind Alias Panda Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:937
1 CRA-8328-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 7 th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8328 of 2024
GOVIND ALIAS PANDA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms Gayatri Ladhiya - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms Rashi Dua - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 25.06.2024 passed by Sixth Additional Sessions
Judge, District Damoh , in ST No. 100/2019 whereby the appellant has
been convicted under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
05 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.
2. As per prosecution story, on 24.04.2019, the injured Rajesh alias
Raju was admitted to the district hospital for treatment by FRV 19 Tejgarh
Dial 100 due to injuries sustained by him. Doctor Ashish Sharma of the
district hospital Damoh, through police information Pre-MLC, informed the
inspector of the police station Kotwali Damoh about the admission of the
injured, upon which Assistant Sub-Inspector S.S. Dubey of the police station
Tejgarh reached the district hospital Damoh and in the district hospital
Damoh, the injured Rajesh alias Raju, son of Meghraj Singh Lodhi, got a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:937
2 CRA-8328-2024
Dehati Nalishi written to the effect that he is a resident of village Karaudi
Padaria. He is posted as a teacher in the Government Primary School
Tejgarh. On 23.04.2019 at around 5 pm, his father Meghraj had an
altercation with Govind alias Pada of the village at the Tejgarh bus stand.
Govind had threatened to beat his father. His father Meghraj had narrated the
incident to him and his family. Later, he, his father, and his maternal uncle
went to their field and slept on the ground. A light bulb was on there. His
father Meghraj and maternal uncle Mangal Singh were sleeping on a separate
bed nearby. At around 2 am, Govind alias Pada came with an axe and
suddenly started hitting him with it, causing injuries to the left side of his
head, above the left eye, in the beard, above the lip, and in the teeth. The skin
on his head and beard was cut and started bleeding. When he screamed, his
father Meghraj and maternal uncle Mangal Singh, who were sleeping nearby,
saw the incident and ran to rescue him. After the incident, Govind ran away
abusing him and his father with filthy language. Based on the said Dehati
Nalishi, Crime Number 131/2019 for offences punishable under sections
294, 323, 324, and 506 of IPC, was registered at Tejgarh police station, and
the case was taken up for investigation.
3. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was
submitted in the competent court, which on its turn committed the case to the
court of session from where it was made over to Sixth Additional Sessions
Judge, Damoh for trial.
4. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of averments made against
the appellant in the charge sheet framed charges for the offences punishable
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:937
3 CRA-8328-2024
under Sections 326, 294 and 506 part-II of IPC. The appellant abjured his
guilt and claimed to be tried. He took the plea that he has been falsely
implicated in the matter. He has examined Pahadi Singh (DW-1) in his
defence.
5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined
as many as 12 witnesses, which are Meghraj Singh (PW-1), Rajesh Singh
Lodhi (PW-2), Dr. Ashish Sharma (PW-3), Rohit Thakur (PW-4), Kamla
Bai (PW-5), Vijay Lodhi (PW-6), Mangal Singh Lodhi (PW-7), Surendra
Singh Lodhi (PW-8), Bhojraj Singh (PW-9), Jitendra Mishra (PW-10),
Santosh Kumar (PW-11) and Shyam Sunder Dubey (PW-12) and placed
Ex.P/1 to P/18 and Ex.D/1 to D/2 the documents on record.
6. Learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, found the
prosecution case proved in respect of commission of offence under Section
326 of IPC, but has acquitted the accused/appellant in respect of commission
of offence under Sections 294 and 506 part-II of IPC. Learned trial Court
convicted and sentenced the appellant for commission of offence as shown
herein-above in paragraph 1.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the present appellant that the
present appellant is in custody for around two years. Earlier during the trial
he remained in custody for 47 days and thereafter as per custody report dated
27.08.2025, he remained in custody without remission one year 02 months
and 02 days and with remission 01 year 07 months and 10 days. As on
today, five months have already been lapsed thereafter and therefore the
entire sentence with remission is around two years. It is also submitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:937
4 CRA-8328-2024
she is not pressing the appeal on merits and pressing it only on the point of
sentence. It is also submitted on the point of sentence that the incident is of
the year 2019. At that time, appellant was 28 years of the age. He has no
criminal antecedents. He also suffered the agony of trial since 2019 and his
conduct was cooperative with the Court during trial. Therefore, it is prayed
that the jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by
him, though on the point of fine, the Court may pass any justified order.
8. Learned counsel for the State has supported the findings recorded
by the Trial Court and has submitted that after appreciating the evidence
produced by the prosecution, the Trial Court has rightly found the appellant
guilty for the aforesaid offence and has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
However, Court is at liberty to consider the matter on the point of sentence.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned
judgment and record of Trial Court.
10. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal
of the record, it is found that trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence
on record and rightly convicted the appellant under Section 326 of IPC,
hence, conviction of appellant under Section 326 of IPC needs no
interference.
11. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of
the case; the age of accused/ appellant as he was 28 years of age at the time
of commission of offence; contention of the counsel that accused/appellant
has no criminal antecedents and he was on bail during the trial but he never
misused the liberty so granted; he has already suffered jail sentence of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:937
5 CRA-8328-2024
around two years; the incident is of the year 2019 and since then the
appellant is facing mental agony, this Court is of the view that the ends of
justice would meet if while maintaining the fine amount as imposed by the
learned Trial Court under Section 326 of IPC, the jail sentence of appellant is
reduced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, while
affirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of IPC, jail
sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him
and the fine amount as imposed by the learned Trial Court under Section 326
of IPC is maintained.
12. Appellant is in jail. Subject to deposit of fine amount, if not
already deposited, he be released in this case forthwith, if not required in any
other case.
13. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid
compliance.
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 to the concerned Trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
16. Accordingly, the criminal appeal stands disposed of to the extent
as indicated herein above..
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
DV
