Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/630/2003 of ABIDSHAH AND ORS. Vs THE STATE OF M.P. on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAFON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 630 of 2003
BETWEEN:-
1.ABIDSHAH S/O MAHMOOD SHAH., AGED ABOUT38 YEARS, R/O MUKUNDPUR P.S. TALA TEHSIL-AMARPATAN DIST - SATNA (M.P)38 YEARS, R/O MUKUNDPUR P.S. TALA TEHSIL-AMARPATAN DIST - SATNA (M.P)
2.KHALIQSHAH S/O MOHMOOD SHAH, AGEDABOUT 32 YEARS, MUKUNDPUR P.S. TALA TEHSILAMARPATEN DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)ABOUT 32 YEARS, MUKUNDPUR P.S. TALA TEHSILAMARPATEN DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)3.YAQUBSHAH S/O MAHMOOD SHAH, AGED ABOUT24 YEARS, MUKUNDPUR P.S. TALA TEHSILAMARPATEN DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)24 YEARS, MUKUNDPUR P.S. TALA TEHSILAMARPATEN DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.WAHIDSHAH S/O MAQDOOM SHAH, AGED ABOUT25 YEARS, MUKUNDPUR P.S. TALA TEHSILAMARPATEN DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)25 YEARS, MUKUNDPUR P.S. TALA TEHSILAMARPATEN DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5.WAJIDSHAH S/O MAQDOOM SHAH, AGED ABOUT22 YEARS, MUKUNDPUR P.S. TALA TEHSILAMARPATEN DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)22 YEARS, MUKUNDPUR P.S. TALA TEHSILAMARPATEN DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6.NASHEER SHAH S/O MAQDOOM SHAH, AGEDABOUT 20 YEARS, MUKUNDPUR P.S. TALA TEHSILAMARPATEN DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)ABOUT 20 YEARS, MUKUNDPUR P.S. TALA TEHSILAMARPATEN DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
7.MAHMOOD SHAH S/O ALLADEEN SHAH, AGEDABOUT 65 YEARS, MUKUNDPUR P.S. TALA TEHSILAMARPATEN DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)ABOUT 65 YEARS, MUKUNDPUR P.S. TALA TEHSILAMARPATEN DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI ESHAN DATT - ADVOCATE )
.....APPELLANTS
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. TALA DIST. SATNA(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRASANJEET CHATTERJEE - PANEL LAWYER)
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed thefollowing:
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.
JUDGMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction dated31.03.2003 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Tehsil-Amarpatan District-Satna in S.T. No.261/2000 whereby the appellants havebeen convicted under Section 148, 323/149, 325/149 and 324/149 of IPC andsentenced to undergo R.I. for 6-6 months for each offence and fine of Rs.300/-, 500/-, 1000/- and Rs.2000/- respectively and in default to further undergo onemonth, two months, three months and six months R.I.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that theprosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial,the appellant No.1 to 6 remained in custody for more than 6 months however,appellant No.7 remained in custody from 03.11.2000 to 20.11.2000. He prayedfor acquittal of the appellant.
3 . Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Statesupported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved theincident and the learned Special Judge has rightly convicted the appellants underSections 148, 323/149, 324/149 and 325/149 of IPC.
4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal ofrecord, it appears that complainant lodged a report on 15.07.2000 at P.S. TalaTehsil-Amarpatan District-Satna (M.P.) against the appellants and four otherpersons which was registered as Crime No. 68/2000 under Sections 147, 148,149, 452, 323, 324, 506-B and 294 and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed. During trial, 12 witnesses were examined by prosecution. The witnessesproved the commission of offence and involvement of the appellants. Learnedtrial Court after considering the statements of the witnesses and record of thecase by judgment dated 31.03.2003 convicted the appellants and acquitted theother accused persons and sentenced as stated hereinabove. I do not find anyreason to interfere in the findings of learned Addl. Sessions Judge and theconviction of the appellants under Sections 148, 323/149, 324/149 and 325/149of IPC are hereby upheld.
5. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year2000, the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of theappellants on record, the appellants remained in custody for considerable time,there is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Sections 148, 323, 324and 325 of IPC, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellants tothe extent of the period which they have already undergone.
6. The appellants are on bail, their personal bonds and bail bonds bedischarged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
7 . Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.
Shub
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE