Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/2240/2010 of NIRMAL SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAFON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2240 of 2010
BETWEEN:-
NIRMAL SINGH S/O MANAK SINGH RAJPUT, AGEDABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 1 RAVINDRA NAGARKHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH).
(BY SHRI S.S. RAJPUT - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH P.S. MOGHAT ROADEAST NIMAR KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH).
(BY SHRI VIJAY PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGEMENT
The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Codeo f Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment of conviction and order ofsentence passed by the 3[rd] Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa (M.P.) inSessions Trial No.165/2010, dated 25.10.2010, whereby the learned trial Judgehas convicted the appellant under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code andsentenced him to undergo 6 months' RI and fine of Rs. 800/- and in default, tofurther undergo 1½ months' RI.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that thecomplainant has lodged a false report. Appellant remained in jail from 16.11.2009 to 20.11.2009. It is submitted that prosecution has failed to provethe case beyond reasonable doubt. He prayed for acquittal of the appellant.
3. Per contra, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of therespondent/State supported the judgment and argued that the witnesses haveduly proved the incident and involvement of the appellant in the offence andprayed that appeal be dismissed.
4. After considering the statements of the witnesses, arguments of boththe parties and after perusal of record, it appears that FIR was lodged on04.09.2009 by Pankaj Singh Solanki against the present appellant and oneBambaiya at Police Station Moghat Road, District Khandwa, registered asCrime No. 530/2009, under Sections 307, 34 of Indian Penal Code and afterinvestigation, charge-sheet has been filed.
5 . Prosecution examined ten witnesses. However, defence has notexamined any witness. PW-1 Pankaj Singh Solanki, PW-2 Narendra Soni, PW-3 Chokhelal and PW-4 Lalit duly supported the prosecution case and narratedthe incident and involvement of the appellant in the incident. PW-5 Dr. AtulMane explained the injuries sustained by injured Pankaj Singh Solanki, however,accepted that injuries were simple in nature. The learned 3[rd] Additional SessionsJudge after considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses and afterexamining the record, by judgment dated 25.10.2010, convicted the appellantunder Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as stated hereinabove.
6. After examination of the statements of the witnesses and perusal ofthe record, I find no reason to interfere in the findings of the learned trial Judge,as the same are based on due appreciation of evidence. Consequently, theconviction of the appellant under Section 323 of IPC is upheld. Sufficientmaterial is available against the appellant to prove the commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC.
7. However, looking to the fact that the incident took place in the year2009, the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of theappellant on record, appellant remained in jail from 16.11.2009 to 20.11.2009,no minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 323 of IPC, I deem it properto reduce the jail sentence of the appellant to the extent of the period which hehas already undergone and accordingly, jail sentence is reduced to the periodalready undergone. However, fine amount is maintained. The appellant is onbail, his personal bonds and bail bonds be discharged. Accordingly, the appealis partly allowed.
8. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.
vkt
(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE