Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1114/2002 of SANTOSH KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF M.P. on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAINON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1114 of 2002
BETWEEN:-
SANTOSH KUMAR PATEL S/O BHOLADEEN PATEL,AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O NARORA, NAIBASTI,THANA MAIHAR, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI RAMAN PATEL - ADVOCATE - ABSENT)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI ANOOP SONKAR - 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.
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant/accused against theimpugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.07.2002passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar, District Satna in S.T.No.205 of2000 whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted appellant for commission ofoffence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for sixmonths and fine of Rs.2500/- with default stipulation.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the complainant is cultivating theGovernment land since last about 15 years. On 17.08.2000 when he was tending to the land then at around 12:00 in the noon, the present appellant stopped himfrom working in the said land. This led to altercation between the two and thenthe appellant is said to have been hit the complainant on his head. Initially, thecase was tried under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, but after trial, thetrial court has convicted the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian PenalCode.
3. Looking to the statement of witnesses Budda Kol (PW/1), Sardai (PW/5)and other witnesses, the evidence of the trial court seems to be well reasoned.Though witnesses Ramjeevan (PW/2) and Tiraghprasad (PW/7) have turnedhostile, but looking to the totality of the evidence brought on record by theprosecution before the trial court, the findings of the trial court seems to be wellreasoned and impeachable. The said findings cannot be interfered with inexercise of appellate jurisdiction being well reasoned and supported by theevidence.
4. The instant case is of the year 2000 and the appellant has sufferedinvestigation, trial and appellate stage since last about 23 years. He has alreadyundergone jail sentence of two months during trial. The long pendency of trialand appeal in the present case is mitigating circumstance to commute thesentence that he has already undergone. The appellant has remained on bailduring trial and during pendency of the present appeal. There is nothing onrecord to suggest that he has misused the terms of bail.
5. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial court under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code ishereby affirmed. However, the jail sentence is reduced to the period alreadyundergone and the fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 2500/- to 7,500/-.
6. Let the fine amount be paid within three months from today, failing which original sentence will come into operation and the appellant will be taken intocustody to serve out the remaining jail sentence.
7. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
8. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, if any, are discharged.
9. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court record along with copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for information andnecessary compliance.
10. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed and disposed off.
sj
(VIVEK JAIN)JUDGE