[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pappu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7480
1 CRA-85-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 27 th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 85 of 2011
PAPPU AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kushwaha - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Manohar Meena - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellants, namely, Pappu, Bhajji @
Bhajju @ Sohan, Ram Prasad and Shivcharan under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C.
being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
24.12.2010 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court),
District Sagar (M.P.) in S.T. No.206/2010 whereby all the appellants have been
convicted under Section 324/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years
and fine of Rs.500/-; Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03
years and fine of Rs.500/-; Section 323/34 of IPC (two counts) and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 06 months and fine of Rs.300/- under each count, with default
stipulations.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that Malli Yadav filed a First
Information Report (Ex.P/8A) in Police Station Baraitha that he is a resident of
village Jhadyola and works as an agricultural labourer and on 2/2/2010 at 10 am
he was watering his crop, at the same time accused Pappu came to his field in a
tractor, he told Pappu that there is loss of paddy, do not take out the tractor from
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7480
2 CRA-85-2011
the field and do not take out the tractor now, hearing this Pappu went home, on
this matter the accused came and started abusing and Pappu started beating him
with a stick, Bhajju hit him with an axe which cut the skin of his right hand and
started bleeding, when he shouted, his sons Neeraj, Kallu and Achhelal came to
him, then Bhajju hit Achhelal with an axe which cut his left hand and started
bleeding, Shivcharan committed marpeet with Neeraj and Rampa beat Kallu with
a stick. Bandu Yadav and Ganesh Raikwar were present at the spot who saw the
incident and tried to intervene. While leaving, the accused said that you have
escaped today, if you refuse to take out the tractor now, we will kill you. The
report written by the complainant was registered as FIR under Ex.P.8A by Sub
Inspector Sanjeev Kumar Chaukse. The accused were sent for medical
examination. Assistant Sub Inspector Hariom Purohit prepared the spot map. The
accused were arrested as per the arrest memo Ex.P.10 to P.13 and the sticks and
axes used in the incident were recovered from their possession as per the seizure
memo of Ex.P.14 to Ex.P.17. The prosecution witnesses were examined under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the
competent court.
4. The learned trial Judge on going through the evidence available in the
charge sheet framed charge against appellants for the offence punishable under
Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 326/34, 325/34, 323/34 (two counts) of IPC, which
they denied and claimed for the trial.
5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many
as 11 witnesses, namely, Dr. Amit Asati (PW-1), Malli Yadav (PW-2), Achhelal
(PW-3), Kallu (PW-4) Neeraj (PW-5), Rajdhar (PW-6), Ganesh (PW-7), Bandhu
Yadav (PW-8), Hariom Purohit (PW-9), Munna Yadav (PW-10), Sanjeev Kumar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7480
3 CRA-85-2011
Chaukse (PW-11) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/17 and Ex.D/1 to D/8 the documents
on record.
6. The accused abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. The
defence of accused is of false implication. Accused Pappu has examined himself
as DW-1 in his defence.
7. The learned trial Judge after appreciating and marshalling the evidence
has acquitted the appellants for the offence under Section 294, 506 Part-II and
326/34 of IPC but has convicted them for the offence under Sections 324/34,
325/34 and 323/34 (two counts) of IPC. The learned Trial Court has sentenced the
accused persons as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. In this manner, the
present appeal has been filed by appellants.
8 . During pendency of this appeal, I.A. No.396/2026 - an application
under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. for permission to compound the matter and I.A.
No.400/2026 - an application for permission to compound the offence as well as
for taking compromise on record.
9. Matter was referred to the Registrar Judicial-II for verification of
compromise vide order dated 20.01.2026. Registrar Judicial-II in compliance of
this Court's order has verified the aforesaid compromise and has submitted its
report dated 20.01.2026.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants,
complainant and injured persons have entered into a compromise on their own
free will & volition and without there being any threat and coercion.
1 1 . The offence under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 of IPC are
compoundable. Looking to the fact that both the parties have settled their dispute,
I.A. No.396/2026 & I.A. No.400/2026 are partly allowed and parties are
permitted to compound the offence under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 of IPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7480
4 CRA-85-2011
12. Accordingly, appellants are acquitted of the offence under Sections
323/34 (two counts) and 325/34 of IPC. The fine amount as imposed by the Trial
Court under the aforesaid offence, if deposited by the appellants, be refunded back
to them.
13. As far as the offence under Section 324 of IPC is concerned, the same
is not compoundable.
14. As regards the commission of offence under Section 324 of IPC, the
submission of learned counsel for the appellants is 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 the learned counsel for the appellants/accused that at
the time of incident accused Pappu was 45 years of age; Bhajji @ Bhajju @ Sohan
was 22 years; Ram Prasad was 40 years of age; and Shivcharan was 20 years of
age. It is also submitted that the incident is of the year 2010 and since then they
are facing the agony of trial. It is further submitted that present appellants
remained in custody for 04 days from 08.03.2010 to 12.03.2010 as per the
custody certificate issued under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. They are the first
offender having no criminal antecedents. They remained cooperative during the
trial and before this Court. Therefore, it is prayed that sentence of the appellants
may be reduced to the period already undergone while enhancing the fine amount
suitably.
15. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment but
he has no objection on deciding the appeal on the point of sentence.
16. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
17. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7480
5 CRA-85-2011
record and rightly convicted the appellants under Section 324/34 of IPC.
Therefore, findings of conviction for the alleged offence under Section 324/34 of
IPC are upheld.
18. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the
case; evidence on record; taking into account the age of accused/ appellants,
namely, Pappu, Bhajji @ Bhajju @ Sohan, Ram Prasad and Shivcharan, who
were 45 years, 22 years, 40 years and 20 years of age respectively at the time of
commission of offence; appellants have suffered custody for 04 days from
08.03.2010 to 12.03.2010 as per the custody certificate issued under Section 428
of Cr.P.C; contention of the counsel that accused/appellants are the first offenders
and have no criminal antecedents; they have been facing agony of trial since 2010
and they were on bail during the trial and the pendency of this appeal but they
never misused the liberty so granted, this Court is of the view that the ends of
justice would meet if while reducing the jail sentence of appellants to the period
already undergone by them, the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to
Rs.1500/- each accused for offence under Section 324/34 of IPC.
1 9 . Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of the appellants
under Section 324/34 of IPC, jail sentence of the appellants is reduced to the
period already undergone by them and fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to
Rs.1500/- each accused for offence under Section 324/34 of IPC, which shall be
deposited by them within a period of 60 days from today. The fine amount, if any
already deposited by the appellants be adjusted against the aforesaid amount of
fine. The entire amount of fine be paid to the injured as compensation
under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
20. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand
discharged. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7480
6 CRA-85-2011
is not deposited within a period of 60 days from today, they would surrender
themselves to serve the entire jail sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court
with default stipulations.
21. The order of the Trial Court pertaining to disposal of the property is
hereby affirmed.
22. 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.
23. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
DV
