Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/3735/2023 of VASU @ VASID KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRAON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3735 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1.VASU @ VASID KHAN S/O SHRI HANIF KHAN,AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDENT OF-NARSINGHWARD, KARELI POLICE STATION KARELIDISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDENT OF-NARSINGHWARD, KARELI POLICE STATION KARELIDISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)2.ARMAN KHAN S/O SHRI AKRAM KHAN, AGEDABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NARSINGHWARD KARELI POLICE STATION KARELIDISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NARSINGHWARD KARELI POLICE STATION KARELIDISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)3.SABBU @ SABIR KHAN S/O SHRI JUMMAN KHAN,AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NARSINGHWARD KARELI POLICE STATION KARELIDISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NARSINGHWARD KARELI POLICE STATION KARELIDISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(ANKIT CHOPRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER .)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH STATIONHOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION KARELI DISTRICTNARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( NALINI GURUNG - P.L. APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATEGENERAL.)
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.
ORDER
The appellants have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by theJudgment passed on 7.2.2023 by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act,Narsinghpur in SC ATR. No.95/2017, by which the appellants have been convicted for offences punishable under Section 324/34 on two counts andsentenced to undergo six months R.I. for each count and fine amount ofRs.1,000/- each ,with default stipulations.
2. The charges against the appellants were for offences punishableunder Sections 341, 294, 506 and 324/34 (two counts) of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(2 counts) and Section 3(1)(S)and 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989, thetrial court, after trial, acquitted the appellants from the rest of the charges, butconvicted for the offence punishable under section 324 for two counts.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant Vasuwas already in custody for 3 days, and Sabbu was in custody for 24 days andArman was in custody for 37 days. So the jail sentence of the appellants bereduced to the period already undergone. He has further argued that in themedical examination and ocular evidence, there is contradictory evidence, andthe appellants be acquitted of the charge under section 324 of IPC. If Court isnot inclined to interfere with the conviction, then the jail sentence be reduced tothe period already undergone.
4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has argued that the judgment isas per facts and law. No interference is called for.
5. Heard the parties and perused the case record. I have gone throughthe judgment of the trial court and prosecution evidence on record. From that,I am satisfied that the conviction of the appellants under Section 324 of IPC ontwo counts is as per law. There is no perversity in the Judgment. Hence, theconviction of the appellants under Section 3234/34 IPC on two counts isaffirmed.
6. On the point of sentence, it is to be noted that the appellants are of
22 - 25 years of age. No previous conviction is proved against the appellants. The injury as stated by Dr. M.S. Upadhyay - P.W. -5 were simple and lookingto the nature of injury, no purpose would be served to re-sending the appellantsto the jail. Hence, the jail sentence under Section 324 of IPC on two counts isreduced to the period already undergone by the appellants. The fine amount isenhanced for each count from Rs.1000-1000/- to Rs.3,000-3,000./- (RupeesThree - Three Thousands) after adjusting the previously deposited fineamounts. Each appellant has to deposit Rs.6,000/- fine amount before the trialcourt. The appellants shall deposit the fine before the trial court within threemonths from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order. In default, thedefaulting appellants shall undergo 4-4 months Simple Imprisonment for eachdefault and the jail sentences shall run consecutively.
7. After the fine amount is deposited before the trial court, the trialcourt shall pay Rs.2,000/- to the victims P.W-1 -Pankaj Thakur S/o ShriramThakur, R/o Mahendra Ward, near Shanti Niketean, Kareli, P.S. - Kareli,District Narsnghpur (M.P.) and P.W.-4 - Abhishek Gond S/o Shri Nihal SinghGond, R/o Mahendra Ward, Kareli, P.S. Kareli, District Narsinghpur (M.P.), ascompensation. The order of the trial court regarding the case property isaffirmed.
8. With the above modification, the appeal is partly allowed.
9. With the copy of the order of this Court, the record of the trial court be returned back for compliance and necessary action.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)JUDGE