Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1070/2020 of BABAR KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWALON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1070 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
1.BABAR KHAN S/O SHRI BASHIR KHAN, AGEDABOUT 19 YEARSABOUT 19 YEARS
2.SALMAN KHAN S/O SHRI BASHIR KHAN, AGEDABOUT 21 YEARSABOUT 21 YEARS
3.ASLAM KHAN S/O SHRI KALLU KHAN, AGEDABOUT 19 YEARSALL R/O JANNAT MARG, MATAMAND, BIAORADISTT. RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)ABOUT 19 YEARSALL R/O JANNAT MARG, MATAMAND, BIAORADISTT. RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
(SHRI RAVINDRA SINGH PARMAR, ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANTS
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATIONHOUSE OFFICER THR. P.S. BIAORA CITY DIST.RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)HOUSE OFFICER THR. P.S. BIAORA CITY DIST.RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.MUNNALAL S/O JAGANNATH, AGED ABOUT 29YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O: MATAMANDMOHALLA, BIAORA, DISTT. RAJGARH (MADHYAPRADESH)YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O: MATAMANDMOHALLA, BIAORA, DISTT. RAJGARH (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI TARUN PAGARE, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE)
This appeal coming on for order 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
This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellants, being aggrieved by the judgement dated 10.01.2020, passed by
Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Rajgarh (Biaora), inSpecial Case No.136/2017, whereby each appellant has been convicted foroffence under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. of 01 yeareach.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset, submits that he isnot challenging the impugned judgement on merits and is confining his argumentonly on the point of sentence.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of thecase.
4. So far as conviction is concerned, I have gone through the evidenceadduced by the prosecution as well as impugned judgement. Perusal of samereveals that learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgement after takinginto consideration overall facts on record and examining it appropriately. Thefindings recorded by learned Trial Court are well supported by evidence onrecord. Hence, no interference is called for in the findings recorded by learnedTrial Court and conviction of appellants u/S 323/34 of IPC is affirmed.
5. So far as sentenced is concerned, learned Trial Court has sentencedappellants u/S 323/34 of IPC with R.I. of 01 year each. Present incident relatesto the year 2017. Hence, in view of nature of injury, ends of justice would beserved if sentence of imprisonment is set aside and appellants are sentencedwith fine only.
6. Hence, in view of above and considering overall facts andcircumstances of the case, appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed andsentence of imprisonment is set aside and each appellant is sentenced with fineamount of Rs.1,000/- u/S 323/34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, toundergo additional R.I. of 01 month.
7. Appellants are directed to deposit the fine amount within a period ofthree months from today, failing which, appellants shall surrender before theTrial Court to undergo remaining sentence of imprisonment, as imposed byTrial Court. After realization of above fine amount, Rs.2,000/- be paid to thecomplainant Munnalal, as compensation.
8. With the aforesaid, present appeal stands partly allowed to theextent indicated above.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
gp
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)JUDGE