[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5985
1 CRA-1175-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 19th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1175 of 2015
MANOJ AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri S.K. Gangrade - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Amit Singh Baghel - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellants, namely, Manoj and
Ramnarayan @ Tantu under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.03.2015 passed
by the Sessions Judge, Harda, District Harda (M.P.) in Session Trial
No.86/2014 whereby appellants, namely, Manoj and Ramnarayan @
Tantu have been convicted under Section 307 and 307/34 of IPC
respectively and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay fine of
Rs.10,000/- each accused, with default stipulations.
2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the informant- Mangilal
Balai lives in Ward No.1, Khirkia and works as a porter. His son -Manish
also works as a porter. On the date of the incident i.e. 20.07.2014, he and his
son-Manish returned home at around 6.30 pm after working as porters in
Khirkia market and had dinner. His son- Manish left home at around 8.00 pm
after dinner and was standing on the road in front of Ramdas Balai's house.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5985
2 CRA-1175-2015
When the accused- Ramnarayan @ Tantu Balai came there and told his son
as to why he is standing in front of his brother Ramdas's house, his son then
returned home. A short while later, at around 8:30 p.m., accused Ramnarayan
alias Tantu Balai, armed with a stick, and his son, accused Manoj armed with
an axe, approached his house and hurled filthy abuses. When he and his son
Manish stopped them from abusing them, the two accused entered his
courtyard. Accused Manoj Balai with an intent to kill Manish, struck Manish
in the stomach with the axe (Ballam) he was holding. Accused Ramnarayan
alias Tantu struck Manish in the left arm near the arm with a stick, causing
severe abdominal injuries. After the assault, the two accused fled. His brother
Santosh, nephew Deepu, and his wife Shyambai witnessed and heard the
entire incident, and he also witnessed it. He then took Manish to Khirkiya
Hospital for treatment and from the hospital, went to the Chipavad police
station to report the incident. Based on the above report, Police Station
Chipavad registered a case against the accused under Sections 452, 307, 34,
294 of IPC at crime number 265/14 and the case was taken up for
investigation.
3 . During the investigation, the police got the injured Manish
medically examined and recorded statements of witnesses. A spot map
(Ex.P/5) of the incident was prepared and a seizure panchnama (Ex.P/8) was
prepared after seizing an iron axe (Ballam) from accused Manoj Balai and a
seizure panchnama (Ex.P/9) was prepared after seizing a bamboo stick from
accused Ramnarayan alias Tantu. The accused were arrested.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5985
3 CRA-1175-2015
competent court, which, on its turn, committed the case to the court of
Sessions for trial.
5. 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, 452, 307/34 and 460 of IPC, which they denied and
claimed for the trial. In their defence, the accused stated that they are
innocent and have been falsely implicated on account of grudge. They are
not on talking terms with the complainants.
6. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as
many as 07 witnesses, which are complainant Mangilal (PW-1), injured
Manish (PW-2), Santosh (PW-3), Dr.R.K.Vishwakarma (PW-4), ASI
Devkaan Uike, (PW-5), Rahul (PW-6), Dr. Shashikant Sen (PW-7) and
placed Ex.P/1 to P/15 the documents on record. The accused persons have
not examined any witness in their defence.
7. The learned Trial Court after appreciating and marshalling the
evidence came to hold that the allegations levelled against the accused
persons are not found to be proved and eventually acquitted them of the
charges under Sections 294, 452 and 460 of IPC. However, the charge under
Section 307 of IPC against accused/appellant No.1 Manoj and the charge
under Section 307/34 of IPC against accused/appellant No.2 Ramnarayan @
Tantu were found proved. Accordingly, the trial Judge has convicted them
and passed the sentences as mentioned above. In this manner, the present
appeal has been filed by the appellants.
8 . As per PUD/letter dated 03.06.2025 received from Dy.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5985
4 CRA-1175-2015
Superintendent, District Jail, Harda (M.P.), appellant No.1 Manoj has
already been released from jail on 10.08.2018 as he had served the entire jail
sentence. Thus, the present appeal in respect of appellant No.1 Manoj stands
disposed of having been rendered infructuous.
9. As far as appeal on behalf of appellant No.2 -Ramnarayan @
Tantu is concerned, it is submitted that as per prosecution story, present
appellant has caused injury on the hand of the victim by means of lathi and
that injury was found simple in nature. The main injury was caused by co-
accused Manoj, which was inflicted in the stomach of the victim and the
same was found to be dangerous to life. Though the present appellant has
been convicted with the aid of Section 34 of IPC but he has served around 1
year and 1 day of incarceration as per custody report dated 03.06.2025. It is
also submitted that he is not pressing the appeal on merits and pressing it
only on the point of sentence. As regards sentence, it is submitted by learned
counsel for appellant No.2 -Ramnarayan @ Tantu that on the date of
commission of offence, he was 50 years of age and the incident is of the year
2014 and since then he is facing mental agony. He has no criminal
antecedent. He is the first offender. As per the record, he never misused the
conditions of bail during trial. Therefore, it is prayed that sentence
of appellant No.2 -Ramnarayan @ Tantu may be reduced to the period
already undergone while enhancing the fine amount suitably.
10. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment
but he has no objection on deciding the appeal on the point of sentence.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5985
5 CRA-1175-2015
12. 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 No.2- Ramnarayan @ Tantu
under Section 307/34 of IPC. Therefore, findings of conviction for the
alleged offence under Section 307/34 of IPC are upheld.
13. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of
the case; evidence on record; taking into account the age of accused/
appellant who was 50 years of age at the time of commission of offence;
contention of the counsel that accused/appellant has no criminal
antecedents; he has been facing agony of trial since 2014 and he was on bail
during the trial and the pendency of this appeal but he never misused the
liberty so granted; and he has served 01 year and 01 day incarceration so
far, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would meet if while
reducing the jail sentence of appellant No.2- Ramnarayan @ Tantu to the
period already undergone by him, the fine is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to
Rs.20,000/-.
14. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of appellant
No.2- Ramnarayan @ Tantu under Section 307/34 of IPC, his jail sentence
is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the fine amount is
enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- which shall be deposited by him
within a period of 60 days from today. The fine amount, if any already
deposited by appellant No.2- Ramnarayan @ Tantu be adjusted against the
aforesaid amount of fine. The entire fine amount of Rs.20,000/- be paid to
the injured as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5985
6 CRA-1175-2015
15. The appellant No.2- Ramnarayan @ Tantu is on bail, his bail
bond shall stand discharged. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as
quantified by this Court is not deposited within a period of 60 days from
today, he would surrender himself to serve the entire jail sentence as
awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.
16. The order of the Trial Court pertaining to disposal of the
property is hereby affirmed.
17. 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.
18. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
DV
