Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/6764/2021 of MUKESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH A T I N D O R E BEFORE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDOR E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6764 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
MUKESH S/O GATTULAL YADAV, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O BADNAWAR, DISTT.-DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA KAUSHAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT).
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S. BADNAWAR, DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( MS. MEHUL SHUKLA, LEARNED PL FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This appeal coming on for orders this day, the 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.
J U D G M E N T
Appellant has filed this appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 09.10.2021 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), district Dhar in Sessions Trial No.29/2019, whereby trial Court has convicted appellant under section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 06 months with fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, further RI for one month.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submits that he is not challenging impugned judgment on merits and is confining his argument to sentence only.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.
4. So far as conviction is concerned, I have gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution and examined it minutely. From perusal of overall evidence on record, it is clearly established that learned trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellant under section 323 of the IPC. Hence, findings recorded by the trial Court with respect to conviction are affirmed.
5. So far as sentence is concerned, perusal of FIR Ex.P/2 reveals that incident has taken place all of a sudden on account of some dispute with respect to “Agenti”. Co-accused as well as appellant are acquitted by the trial Court with respect to offence under sections 292, 506 (Part-II) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Appellant has been convicted under section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to RI for 06 months with fine of Rs.1,000/- with further default stipulation. Appellant is approximately aged 60 years.
6. Hence, in view of above facts and circumstances of the case, appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed and while setting aside sentence of imprisonment, appellant is sentenced with fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo RI for one month.
7. In the result, appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
hk/