Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/126/2021 of RAJEEV TRIPATHI 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 VINAY SARAFON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 126 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
RAJEEV TRIPATHI S/O SHRI SHARDA PRASADTRIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION:LABOUR VILLAGE KARIGOHI P.S. DHARKUNDIDISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI AKSHAT TAMRAKAR-AMICUS CURIAE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRO. P.S.DHARKUNDI DISTT. SATNA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI G.S. THAKUR- GOVT.ADVOCATE )
.....RESPONDENTS
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.
JUDGEMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order ofsentence passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Satna in S.T.No.200323/2013 whereby the appellant have been convicted under Section 325of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and fineof Rs.5000/- and in default, to further undergo SI for one month.
2. No one present on behalf of appellant. Shri Akshat Tamrakar,Advocate present in the Court has been requested to assist the Court as amicus curiae.
3. The learned amicus curaie for the appellant has submitted that theprosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial,the appellant remained in custody from 4.9.2013 to 8.9.2013. He prayed foracquittal of the appellants.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Statesupported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved theincident and the learned sessions Court has rightly convicted the appellantsunder Section 325 of the IPC.
5. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal ofrecord, it appears FIR was lodged against the appellant at Police Station-Dharkundi District Satna on 7.6.2013 by one Nanaji @ Ramnihor which wasregistered as Crime No.27/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 326,329, 294, 506 B of the IPC and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.The prosecution examined five witnesses. PW 2 -Nanji stated the incident andinvolvement of the appellant. PW 1-A.K. Trivedi sustained injuries andaccording to doctor, injury no.1 was grievous in nature. P.W. 5-Dr. P.D.Agrawal proved the fracture in the right wrist of Alna and Radious of injuredNanaji. Learned Special Judge after considering the statements of the witnessesand the material available on record, by judgment dated 21.12.2020 convictedthe appellant under Section 325 of the IPC. The findings recorded by thelearned Special Judge are based on appreciation of evidence and I do not findany reason to interfere in the same. Accordingly, the judgment of convictionand conviction under Section 325 of the IPC is upheld.
6. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year2013, the appellant remained in custody for some time, the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellant on record and there is nominimum sentence has been prescribed under Section 325 of Indian PenalCode, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellant to the extentof the period which he has already undergone and accordingly, the jail sentenceis reduced and the fine amount is maintained. The appellant is on bail, hispersonal bond and bail bond be discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is partlyallowed.
7. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of thejudgment.
P/-
(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE