Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1101/2014 of GOPAL SINGH 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. 1101 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
1.GOPAL SINGH S/O OMKAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT47 YEARS, VILLAGE DHORANI DISTRICTKHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.SHYAM SINGH S/O GOPAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT20 YEARS, VILL. DHORANI DISTRICT KHANDWA(MADHYA PRADESH)20 YEARS, VILL. DHORANI DISTRICT KHANDWA(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.MADAN PRAJAPATI S/O MANGILAL PRAJAPATI,AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, VILL. DHORANIDISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI S.S. RAJPUT - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANTS
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH P.S. SC/STKHANDWA KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY MS. PAPIYA GHOSH - 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 CriminalProcedure, the appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and orderof sentence passed by learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act) Khadwa in SpecialCase No.50/2012 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections294, 323 and 323/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo six months RI for 323 and 323/34 and fine of Rs.200-200/- in three counts andsentenced fine of Rs.200 with default stipulation for 294 of IPC.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that theprosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial,the appellants did not remain in custody. He prayed for acquittal of theappellants.
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 sessions Court has rightly convicted the appellants.
4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal ofrecord, it appears that FIR was lodged by Vijay on 3.8.2012 at Police StationAjak, Khadwa which was registered as Crime No. 2/2012 under Sections 294,323, 506, 34 of the IPC and 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of AttrocitiesAct) 1989 against the appellants and after investigation charge-sheet was filed.The prosecution examined witness PW.3 Vijay, PW 4 Kamla Bai, PW 5 SurajBai narrated the incident and proved the involvement of the appellants in theoffence. PW12-Dr. G.S. Chhabra explained the injuries sustained by Kamla bai,however accepted that the injuries were simple in nature. Learned Special Judgeby judgment datd 26.3.2014 acquitted the appellants from the chargespunishable under Section 3(1) (X) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities Act)1989 and convicted the appellants under Sections 294, 323 and 323/34 of theIPC and sentenced as stated herein above. After considering the statement ofthe writneese on record, I do not find any reason to interfere in the findingsrecorded by the learned Special Judge and the judgment of conviction underSections 294, 323 and 323/34 of the IPC are hereby upheld.
5. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year 2012, the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of theappellants on record. There is no minimum sentence has been prescribed underSections 294, 323 and 323/34 of the IPC, 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/- is imposed for each count on each appellant.Appellants shall deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two monthsfrom today. 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 the judgment.
P/-
(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE