Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/3584/2018 of MANOJ PATEL 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, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3584 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
1.MANOJ PATEL S/O RUP SINGH @ HALKAI PATEL,AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURIST VILL. MANKEDI, P.S.BELKHEDA, DIST. JABALPUR (MADHYAPRADESH)AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURIST VILL. MANKEDI, P.S.BELKHEDA, DIST. JABALPUR (MADHYAPRADESH)
2.RAJJU @ KAMLESH S/O RUP SINGH @ HALKAISINGH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE M A N K H E D I PSBELKHEDA DIST. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)SINGH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE M A N K H E D I PSBELKHEDA DIST. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.SEEPU UPADHYAY S/O KRISHNA KUMARUPADHYAY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILLAGE MANKHEDI PSBELKHEDA DIST. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)UPADHYAY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILLAGE MANKHEDI PSBELKHEDA DIST. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.RUP SINGH @ HALKAI S/O TRILOK SINGH PATEL,AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE M A N K H E D I PSBELKHEDA DIST. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE M A N K H E D I PSBELKHEDA DIST. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI D.K. PATEL - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANTS
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROGUH P.SBELKHEDA JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI VIJAY PANEY - PANEL LAWYER )
.....RESPONDENTS
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
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction dated28.04.2018 passed by IXth Additional Session Judge, Jabalpur in S.TNo.33/2017 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 323/34(four counts) of IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 6 months and fine ofRs.500/- in default to further undergo one month S.I. for each count.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that theprosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial,the appellants were not in custody. In respect of the same incident, the criminalcase was registered against the complainant party for causing injuries to theappellants and the same was tried by Session Court therefore, the present casewas also committed to the Session Court and tried by the Session Court. Heprayed for acquittal of the appellants.
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 Session Court has rightly convicted the appellantsunder Section 323/34 (four counts) of Indian Penal Code.
4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal ofrecord, it appears that on 03.03.2016, a report was lodged by Jagdish Patelagainst the appellants which was registered as Crime No. 50/2016 at PoliceStation- Belkheda District- Jabalpur, under Sections 323, 294, 324 and 506/34of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.Prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of the case of the prosecution.PW-1 (Jagdish Patel), PW-2 (Ambika Prasad), PW-3 (Sonu Patel) and PW-4(Yogendra Patel) supported the prosecution case and narrated the incident andinvolvement of appellants. PW-7 (Dr. C.K. Atrolia) explained the injuries
sustained by Jagdish Patel, Sonu Patel, Monu Patel and Ambika Prasadhowever, accepted that all the injuries were simple in nature, defence alsoexamined Manoj Patel and brought the FIR of cross case on record as well asthe charge-sheet. The learned Session Judge after considering the evidence ofthe witnesses and material available on record, convicted the appellants underSection 323/34 of IPC (four counts) and sentenced as stated hereinabove. Thefindings recorded by learned Additional Session Judge are based on dueappreciation of evidence and I do not find any reason to interfere in the findingsand, therefore, the judgment and conviction of appellants under Section 323/34(four counts) of IPC are hereby upheld.
5. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year2016, the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of theappellants on record, there is no minimum sentence has been prescribed underSection 323 of Indian Penal Code. Appellants also sustained injuries in theincident, cross case was registered, I deem it proper to set aside the jailsentence of the appellants and accordingly, the jail sentence is set aside.However, fine of Rs.1000/- for each count on each appellant is imposed. Theappellants shall deposit the fine amount within a period of two months fromtoday. The appellants are on bail, their personal bonds and bail bonds bedischarged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
6 . Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of thejudgment.
(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE