Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/4060/2022 of PRAMOD DAHIYA 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. 4060 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1.PRAMOD DAHIYA S/O CHOTELAL, AGED ABOUT23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR JHANDACHOWK CHANDMARI GHAMAPUR DISTRICTJABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR JHANDACHOWK CHANDMARI GHAMAPUR DISTRICTJABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.PANKAJ SHRIVAS S/O AJAY SHRIVAS, AGEDABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/OSANTOSHI MATA ROAD CHANDMARI DISTRITJABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/OSANTOSHI MATA ROAD CHANDMARI DISTRITJABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.SAGAR BALMIK S/O RAMESH BALMIK, AGEDABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/ON E A R PANCHSIL SCHOOL CHANDMARIGHAMAPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR M.P (MADHYAPRADESH)ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/ON E A R PANCHSIL SCHOOL CHANDMARIGHAMAPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR M.P (MADHYAPRADESH)
4.DEEPU DAHIYA S/O SATYANARAYAN DAHIYA,AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURR/O BADI SANTOSHI MATA MANDIR LALMATIP.S. GHAMAPUR DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYAPRADESH)AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURR/O BADI SANTOSHI MATA MANDIR LALMATIP.S. GHAMAPUR DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYAPRADESH)
5.GLADWIN @ BANTI ISAYI S/O PITAR ISAI, AGEDABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/ONEAR PANCHSIL SCHOOL CHANDMARIGHAMAPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR M.P (MADHYAPRADESH)ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/ONEAR PANCHSIL SCHOOL CHANDMARIGHAMAPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR M.P (MADHYAPRADESH)
6.PRAVEEN @ RAJA SHRIVS S/O AJAY SHRIVAS,AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURR/O NEAR PANCHSIL SCHOOL CHANDMARIGHAMAPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR M.P (MADHYAPRADESH)AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURR/O NEAR PANCHSIL SCHOOL CHANDMARIGHAMAPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR M.P (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI R.N. DWIVEDI-ADVOCATE )
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION GHAMAPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY MS. SHIKHA SINGH BAGHEL )
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed thefollowing:
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 IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge District Jabalpur inS.T.No.7100767/2015 on 23.4.2022 whereby the appellants -Pankaj, Praveen, Pramod, Deepu, Gladwin @ Bunty, Sagar and one Ajay have been convictedunder Section 147, 427, 452, 323/149 (three counts) of Indian Penal Code andappellants Deepu, Gladwin, Sagar and one Ajay convicted under Section 148 ofthe IPC also and sentenced as described in paragraph 55 of the judgment.
2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, co-accused-Ajay has not preferred any appeal as he has already suffered thesentences awarded by the Court. Similarly, the appellant Deepu, Gladwin @Bunty have also completed the jail sentence and therefore, he prays forwithdrawal of the appeal on behalf of Deepu and Gladwin @ Bunty.
3. The prayer is allowed and the appeal filed by the Deepu andGladwin @ Bunty is permitted to be withdrawn. Therefore, their appeal isdismissed as withdrawn.
4. Now, this appeal will be considered for appellants- Pankaj, Praveen,Pramod and Sagar.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that theprosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.During trial appellant-Pramod remained in custody from 18.8.2015 to 6.1.2016=142 daysand Pankaj remained in custody from 1.9.2015 to 31.12.2015=128 days, Sagarremained in custody from 1.9.2015 to 30.11.2015=91 days and Praveen from26.10.2015 to 10.1.2016=77 days. . He prayed for acquittal of the appellants.
6. 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.
7. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal ofrecord, it appears that FIR was lodged at Police Station Ghamapur, District-Jabalpur on 17.8.2015 by Mukesh Kumar Dholpuri which was registered asCrime No.804/2015 under Section 147, 148, 149 323, 307 and 452 of the IPCand 3/5 of Exclusive Act against the appellants and Ajay and after investigation,the charge sheet was filed against all of them. The prosecution has exmained 11witnesses. However, the defense has examined three witnesses. P.W.1- MukeshKumar Vilmik, PW 3-Usha Bai, PW 4-Ramabai supported the prosecution caseand narrated the incident and involvement of appellants in the offence. PW9-Dr.Archana Grover explained the injuries sustained by the injured Mukesh, Rakeshand Ramabai. Learned Sessions Judge after considering the statements of thewitnesses and record of the case by the judgment dated 23.4.2022 acquitted allthe accused persons from the offences punishable under Section 307 read with149 of the IPC however convicted under Section 147, 148, 323/149 (threecounts), 427 and 452 of the IPC as stated herein above.
8. After examining the statements of the witnesses and record of thecase, I do not find any reason to interfere in the findings recorded by thelearned Additional Sessions Judge as the same are based on due appreciation ofevidence and consequently the judgment of conviction and conviction of appellants under Sections 147, 148, 427, 452 and 323/149 (three counts) areupheld.
9. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year2015, the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of theappellants on record, the appellants remained in custody as stated herein aboveand there is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Sections 147, 148,427, 452 and 323/149 (three counts) of Indian Penal Code, I deem it proper toreduce the jail sentence of the appellants to the extent of the period which theyhave already undergone and accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced. However,fine is enhanced to Rs.1000/- for each appellants for each offence. Theappellants shall deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two monthsfrom today. The enhanced amount of fine shall be paid to the complainant ascompensation by the trial court. The appellants are on bail, their personal bondsand bail bonds be discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
10. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.
P/-
(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE