Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/6403/2021 of NEERAJ PARASHAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAFON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6403 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. NEERAJ PARASAR S/O RAVISHANKAR PARASARAGED ABOUT 37 YRS. OCCUPATION- SERVICE;
2. BHOLE @ NITIN PARASAR S/O RAVISHANKARPARASAR AGED ABOUT 32 YRS. OCCUPATION -FARMER;
3. NAMAN PARASAR S/O RAVISHANKAR PARASARAGED ABOUT 30 YRS. OCCUPATION-FARMER ALL ARE RESIDENCE OF P.S. KANJAI TEHSILGOTEGAON DIST. NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)
(BY SHRI R.K. TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANTS
ANDTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRO. P.S.GOTEGAON DISTT. NARSINGHPUR M.P.
(BY SHRI Y.D. YADAV- GOVT. ADVOCATE )
.....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.
JUDGEMENT
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) Narsinghpur in S.T.No.133/2016 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 323 ofthe Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3-3 months and fine of Rs.1000-1000/- and in default, to further undergo SI for 15 days.
2. The learnedcounsel 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 appellantsunder Section 323 of IPC.
5. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal ofrecord, it appears that on the basis of first information report lodged by PooranAhirwar at Police Station Gotegaon District Narsingpur, Crime No.444/2016was registered on 14.6.2016 and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filedagainst the appellants.The prosecution examined eight witnesses. PW.2-Pooranlal, PW 5-Ghanshyam Ahirwar supported the prosecution case andnarrated the incident and involvement of the appellants. PW. 6-Dr.S.S. Thakurexplained the injuries sustained by Pooran and Ghanshyam. Learned SpecialJudge after considering the evidence available on record and after considere thedefense evidence acquitted the appellants from the charges punishable underSection 341, 294, 506 of the IPC and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, however, convicted under Section 323 ofthe IPC and sentenced as stated above. After perusal of the record, It appearsthat the learned Special Judge has duly appreciated the evidence and convictedthe appellants under Section 323 of the IPC and there is no ground available tointerfere in the same. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 323 of the IPCis upheld.
6. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year2016, the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of theappellant on record and there is no minimum sentence has been prescribedunder Section 323 of Indian Penal Code, I deem it proper to set aside the jailsentence of the appellants and accordingly, the jail sentence is set aside and thefine amount is maintained. The appellants are on bail, his personal bonds andbail bonds be discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
7. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of thejudgment.
P/-
(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE