Ramlal @ Tiggu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2026 Latest Caselaw 309 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramlal @ Tiggu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 January, 2026

Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh

Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3154




                                                                  1                          CRA-2165-2008
                               IN      THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT JABALPUR
                                                          BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
                                                   ON THE 13th OF JANUARY, 2026
                                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2165 of 2008
                                                       RAMLAL @ TIGGU
                                                            Versus
                                                THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                            Appearance:
                               None for the appellant.
                               Ms. Shakti Tripathi - Panel Lawyer for the State of M.P.

                                                                 JUDGMENT

Since no one is present on behalf of the appellant therefore Ms. Seema Jaiswal, learned counsel is appointed as amicus curiae in this case.

After studying the fine for sometime, she has argued the case. The appellant - Ramlal @ Tiggu has been produced from jail custody by the jail guard of the concerned jail.

He was sent to jail on 5.1.2026.

It is seen that suspension of sentence was granted on 7.1.2009.

The appeal was admitted on 7.1.2009.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this appeal is heard finally.

The appellant is aggrieved of the judgment dated 31.7.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Branch Damoh, District Damoh in S.T. No.43 of 2005 (State of M.P. Vs. Banti @ Manoj and two others). The appellant including other co- accused has been acquitted from the charge under Section 294 and 307 of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3154

2 CRA-2165-2008 IPC but he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.2000/-.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not press this appeal against conviction. His limited prayer is that the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant raising the fine amount.

3. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has no objection the prayer as advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is allowed.

4. Perused the record and the statements of prosecution witnesses and the statements of defence witnesses. It is seen that the conviction is well justified. Accordingly appeal against conviction is rejected.

5. Regarding quantum of sentence it is seen that the appellant remained in custody for 108 days in judicial custody.

6. It is seen that the incident took place on 15.9.2004 at about 4.30 PM. The complainant - Abhay Kumar Jain stated that the appellant alongwith other co- accused assaulted him with sword on his leg.

7. Perused the statements of Dr.S.K. Jain (PW-2) who stated that the victim - Abhay Kumar Jain sustained seventeen injuries out of which as mentioned in the deposition sheet injury no. 6 to 11 and injury no. 14 to 16 were caused by sharp object and rest were caused by hard and blunt object. He further stated that in cross - examination weapon of assault was not produced neither there was any history. The injured was in his sense.

8. Therefore looking to the nature of injuries jail sentence under Section 324 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3154

3 CRA-2165-2008 appellant but the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.2000/- to Rs.10,000/-. The additional fine amount of Rs.8000/- shall be paid as compensation to the injured - Abhay Kumar Jain by the trial court. If additional fine amount of Rs.8000/- is not deposited by the appellant within 30 days from today then the appellant will have to undergo additional R.I. for three months.

9. With the aforesaid this appeal is disposed of.

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE

bks