Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/11873/2022 of DILIP KUMAR TIWARI 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 BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDION THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11873 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1.DILIP KUMAR TIWARI S/O LATE RADHEY SHYAMTIWARI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, G.P. MEMORIALSCHOOL KE PASS RANJHI POLICE STATIONRANJHI JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.SMT. SARASWATI TIWARI W/O DILIP TIWARI,AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O G.P. MEMORIALSCHOOL KE PASS RANJHI P.S. RANJHI JABALPUR(MADHYA PRADESH)AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O G.P. MEMORIALSCHOOL KE PASS RANJHI P.S. RANJHI JABALPUR(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI BALBANT SINGH - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANTS
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHPOLICE STATION RANJHI DISTRICT JABALPUR(MADHYA PRADESH)POLICE STATION RANJHI DISTRICT JABALPUR(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.ROHINI PRASAD AAHIRWAR S/O TAK SINGHAHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NEARG.P.MEMORIAL SCHOOL RANJHI JABALPUR(MADHYA PRADESH)AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NEARG.P.MEMORIAL SCHOOL RANJHI JABALPUR(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY MS. SHANTI TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER )
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for final hearing 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.
ORDER
This Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (or short "Code") assails the judgment and order dated09.12.2022 passed passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (PoA) Act,
Jabalpur in SCATR No. 25 of 2015 whereby the appellant has been convictedfor the offences under Sections 452 & 323 read with Section 34 (four counts)of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months andfine of Rs.500/- and rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine ofRs.500/- respectively with default stipulations.
2. The incident was reported to the Police Station Ranjhi District Jabalpur(M.P.) where FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered on Crime No. 668/2014 underSection 452, 294, 323, 324, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(i)(x) ofSC/St (PoA) Act. The investigation was set in motion and on its completioncharge-sheet was filed. Learned trial Court after hearing the concerned partiesand on due appreciation of the evidence on record vide impugned judgment,convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned herein above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants challenging the conviction and sentencesubmits that the learned trial Court has failed to notice the serious anomalies,contradictions and omissions present in the testimony of prosecution witnesses.He has committed serious error of fact and law in recording the findings ofconviction. Therefore, appellants are entitled for acquittal. In the alternative limbof prayer, learned counsel for appellants submits that appellants have nocriminal antecedent, the incident took place more than 09 years back. Therefore,by taking lenient view the jail sentence awarded to the appellants may bereduced to the period till rising of the Court and the amount of fine may beenhanced.
4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State supports the impugned judgment andprays for dismissal of this appeal. prays for dismissal of this appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The evidence adduced in support of the allegation with regard to offence under Section 452 & 323 read with Section 34 of IPC is found to be clearcogent and consistent. The same is free from any material infirmity andanomaly. The testimony of injured witnesses namely Rohani Prasad (PW-2),Subhash (PW-4) and Bhanu Pratap (PW-10) stands duly corroborated withFirst Information Report (Ex.P-1) and also with the he medical evidence i.e.MLC reports (Ex.P-5, P-6, P-7 & P-8) and X-ray report (P-8). One injuredNirupa has not been examined but she sustained injuries in the incident which isfully proved by the statements of other injured eye-witnesses. Therefore, thefindings of conviction cannot be interfered with and is hereby affirmed.
7. As regards the sentence, prayer made on behalf of appellants appears tobe reasonable. The incident took place more than 09 years back. The appellantfaced trial and appeal during these long period of 09 year. No criminalantecedents are attributed to the appellants, therefore, jail sentence for offenceunder Section 323/34 IPC is set-aside and the jail sentence for offence underSection 452 is reduced till rising of the Court..
8. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed on the point of sentenceaffirming conviction of the appellants. Jail sentence is modified as mentionedherein above. The fine amount imposed to the appellants for offence underSection 452 of IPC is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.4000/- each and the fineamount for offence under Section 323/34 IPC (four count) is enhanced fromRs.500/- (each count) to Rs.1000/- (each count) each. Meaning thereby eachappellants will have to deposit further enhanced amount of fine of Rs.2000/-with regard to the offence under Section 323/34 IPC and Rs.3500/- for theoffence under Section 452 IPC. The enhanced amount amount of fine will bedeposited by the appellants within a period two months form the date of judgment of this Court before the learned trial Court, failing which, they willhave to under go simple imprisonment of one month each.
9. The appellants will surrender before the learned trial Court on 19.02.2024at 11:00 a.m. sharp for serving out the jail sentence till rising of the Court. Ifappellants fail to report before learned trial Court on the given date and time forserving out sentence till rising of the Court, the learned trial Court will be atliberty to take coercive action to secure the presence of the appellants forserving out the sentence. The appellants are on bail, their bail bond and personalbond shall stands discharged.
10. The record of the learned trial Court alongwith the copy of the judgementbe forthwith sent back to the learned trial Court for compliance and necessary action.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)JUDGEAmitabh