[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Achchhe Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4172
1 CRA-2081-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 15th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2081 of 2013
ACHCHHE SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. Amit Jain - Advocate for appellants - Absent.
Mr. Amit Singh Baghel - Panel Lawyer for State.
JUDGMENT
As none has appeared on behalf of the appellants, Shri Sachindra
Raghuwanshi, Advocate is appointed as amicus curiae to assist this Court.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 15.07.2013 passed by the learned
Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen
(M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.158 of 2009 whereby the present appellants have
been convicted under Sections 324/34 and 506 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo three years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/-, on
each count and one year SI respectively with default stipulations.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06.03.2009 at about 11:00 AM,
Raghav Singh and Raghuraj received information that appellants namely
Achhe Singh, Tarwar and Mukesh were cutting Babul tree standing in the
drain adjoining their agricultural field. Acting upon the said information,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4172
2 CRA-2081-2013
Raghav Singh, Raghuraj and Arjun reached the spot and found the accused
persons engaged in cutting the said tree. When they objected and attempted
to restrain appellants allegedly abused them. Thereafter, Raghav Singh,
Raghuraj and Arjun turned back and proceeded towards the house of Ashok.
It is further alleged that appellants with the intention to kill, threw a hand
grenade, which exploded and caused injuries to Raghuraj, Arjun and Raghav
Singh on their arms and chest. On hearing the hue and cry, Rajesh
Radheshyam, son of Sardar Singh, Radheshyam, son of Suresh Kumar, Amar
Singh, Ram Kumar, Savitribai and Pappu reached the spot. The injured
persons were taken to Wadi Hospital for treatment. Raghav Singh lodged a
report at Police Station Bharkachh at about 2:50 PM on 06.03.2009, on the
basis of which Crime No.17 of 2009 was registered for offences punishable
under Sections 307, 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. During the course of investigation, the injured persons were medically
examined and referred to Bhopal for further treatment. A spot map was
prepared and remains of the hand grenade along with soil from the place of
occurrence were seized. Statements of witnesses were recorded and, upon
completion of the investigation.
4. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the
competent 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.
5. The learned trial Judge on going through the evidence available in the
charge-sheet framed charges against appellants for the offences punishable
under Sections 307/34, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/5
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4172
3 CRA-2081-2013
of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, which they denied and claimed for the
trial.
6. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many
as 14 witnesses, namely Dr. Devendra Singh Thakur (PW-1), Raghav Singh
Thakur (PW-2), Omprakash (PW-3), Ramswaroop Gour (PW-4), Shivkumar
Dubey (PW-5), Raghuraj Singh (PW-6), Gulab Singh (PW-7), Shyam Singh
(PW-8), Savitri Bai (PW-9), Ramkumar Parashar (PW-10), Radheshyam
(PW-11), Dr. Kushal Gadwal (PW-12), R.K. Meena (PW-13) and Pappu
(PW-14) and placed the documents Ex.P-1 to P-24. In defence, the
appellants have examined defence witnesses namely Surendra Singh Thakur
(DW-1) and Kuber Singh (DW-2) and exhibited documents Ex. D-1 to D-7.
7. The learned trial Judge after appreciating and marshalling the evidence
vide impugned judgment has convicted the appellants for the commission of
offence punishable under Sections 324/34 and 506 (Part-II) 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. Shri Sachindra Raghuwanshi, learned counsel appearing as amicus
curiae for the appellants submits that the incident in question is of the year
2009. The present appellants were about 25 years of age at the time of the
offence and have been facing the ordeal of trial for a long period. As per the
certificate issued under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant No.1
Achchhe Singh remained in custody for 198 days, appellant No.2 Tarvar
Singh and appellant No.3 Mukesh Singh remained in custody for 155 days
during the course of trial. Having regard to the tender age of the appellants at
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4172
4 CRA-2081-2013
the time of the incident, the absence of any criminal antecedents, the
prolonged pendency of the proceedings since 2009 spanning about 17 years
and his 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
learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence available on record
and has rightly convicted the present appellants under Sections 324/34 and
506 (Part-II) of the IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under
Sections 324/34 and 506 (Part-II) of the IPC calls for no interference.
12. As regards sentence, taking into account the facts and circumstances of
the case, particularly the age of the appellants being 25 years each at the time
of the incident in the year 2009, their cooperative conduct during trial, the
fact that they are the first-time offenders and the submissions made 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. Accordingly,
while affirming the conviction of the appellants under Sections 324/34 and
506 (Part-II) of the IPC, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4172
5 CRA-2081-2013
period already undergone by them. The fine is enhanced from Rs.1,000/-
each to Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 324/34 of the IPC. The
enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the 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 deposited before the learned trial Court.
13. The present appellants are on bail, their bail bond shall stand
discharged.
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 a copy of this order be sent
back to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
16. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
THK
