Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/3329/2019 of RAJESH LODHI 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 JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAFON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3329 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1.RAJESH LODHI S/O IMRAT LODHI, AGED ABOUT34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/OGRAM CHARODA, P.S. AND TEHSIL MALTHON,DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)2.RAJA SAHAB S/O IMRAT LODHI, AGED ABOUT 32YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O GRAMCHARODA, P.S. AND TEHSIL MALTHON, DISTT.SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)3.IMRAT S/O PYARELAL LODHI, AGED ABOUT 57YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O GRAMCHARODA, P.S. AND TEHSIL MALTHON, DISTT.SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)4.RAJA BHAIYA S/O MEHTAB LODHI, AGED ABOUT34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/OGRAM CHARODA, P.S. AND TEHSIL MALTHON,DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)5.MEHTAB S/O PYARELAL LODHI, AGED ABOUT 52YEARS, R/O GRAM CHARODA, P.S. AND TEHSILMALTHON, DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI AMIT JAIN - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANTS
ANDTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. POLICESTATION MALTHON, DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI NISHANT YADAV - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT
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 II[nd ]A.S.J. Khurai, District Sagar in S.T. No.3900405/16on 21.02.2019 whereby all the appellants have been convicted under Section324/34 (3 counts) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year R.I.and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to further undergo R.I. one month for eachcount and convicted appellants Rajesh Lodhi and Raja Bhaiya under Section325/34 and sentenced to undergo three years R.I. and fine of Rs.3000/- eachand in default, to further undergo R.I. for three months.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that theprosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial,the appellant Rajesh Lodhi remained in custody for 1 year 4 months and 06days, appellant Raja Saheb Lodhi remained in custody for 01 month 13 days,appellant Imrat Lodhi remained in custody for 01 month 13 days, appellantRajabhaiya Lodhi remained in custody for 01 month 11 days, appellant MehtabLodhi remained in custody for 01 month 11 days. 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 appellantsunder Sections 325/34 and 324/34 of Indian Penal Code.
4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal ofrecord, it appears that the FIR was lodged by Sultan Singh at Police StationMalthon, District Sagar against the appellants on 31.03.2016 registered as Crime
No.52/16 under Sections 323, 294, 506 (II), 307, 325, 34 of Indian Penal Codeand during investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet. The prosecutionexamined 13 witnesses in support of their case. PW-1 Krishna Bai, PW-2 RajaBhaiya, PW-3 Rampravesh and PW-5 Janak Singh supported the prosecutioncase and narrated the incident and involvement of the appellants. PW-12 Dr.Rohit Pant explained the injuries sustained by Ramkesh, Rampravesh, RajaBhaiya and Janak Singh. According to the X-ray report, the victim Raja Bhaiyasustained fracture in little finger of right hand. The learned Additional SessionsJudge, after considering the statement of the witnesses and material available onrecord, by judgment dated 21.02.2019, convicted the appellants under Sections324/34 (3 counts) and 325/34 and sentenced as stated herein above. After examining the statement of the witnesses and other material available on record,I do not find any reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge. The findings recorded by the learned AdditionalSessions Judge appears to be based on due appreciation of evidence andtherefore, the judgment of conviction under Sections 324/34 and 325 are herebyupheld.
5. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year2016, the appellants remained in custody for considerable period and theprosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellants onrecord. There is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Section 325or 324 of Indian Penal Code, and the incident happened all of a sudden, I deemit proper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellants to the extent of the periodwhich they have already undergone and accordingly, the jail sentence isreduced. However, fine is enhanced from Rs.3000-3000/- to Rs.6000-6000/-under Section 325 and Rs.1000-1000-1000/- to Rs.2000-2000-2000/- under
Section 324/34 for each appellant. The fine amount be paid to the victims JanakSingh, Ramkesh, Rampravesh equally under Section 357 as compensation. Theappellants 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.
5. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of thejudgment.
Priya.P
(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE