Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/979/2018 of GULLU @ OMPRAKASH LODHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGHON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 979 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
1.GULLU @ OMPRAKASH LODHI S/O SHRIKUNJILAL LODHI, AGED 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:KARSHI R/O GRAM MAHOLI P.S. CHANDERIDISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)KUNJILAL LODHI, AGED 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:KARSHI R/O GRAM MAHOLI P.S. CHANDERIDISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.HATE SINGH S/O KOMAL SINGH, AGED 41 YEARS,OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O GRAMMAHOLI THANA AND TEHSIL CHANDERI DISTT.ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O GRAMMAHOLI THANA AND TEHSIL CHANDERI DISTT.ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.GOPAL S/O KUNJI LAL LODHI, AGED 41 YEARS,OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O GRAMMAHOLI THANA AND TEHSIL CHANDERI DISTT.ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O GRAMMAHOLI THANA AND TEHSIL CHANDERI DISTT.ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.SANMAN LODHI S/O KUNJI LAL LODHI, AGED 43YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O GRAMMAHOLI THANA AND TEHSIL CHANDERI DISTT.ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O GRAMMAHOLI THANA AND TEHSIL CHANDERI DISTT.ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI DEEPAK SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANTS
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHPOLICE STATION CHANDERI DISTRICTASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)POLICE STATION CHANDERI DISTRICTASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.SUNIL S/O MOJALAL, AGED 45 YEARS,OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O GRAM MAHOLITHANA AND TEHSIL CHANDERI DISTT.ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O GRAM MAHOLITHANA AND TEHSIL CHANDERI DISTT.ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI I.S.ASTHANA - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENTS
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 criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by theappellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated19.01.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, District Ashoknagar inS.T.No.87/2014, whereby the trial Court has acquitted all appellants underSection 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and Sections 294, 506-B of IPC but hasconvicted them under Section 323/34 (3 counts) IPC and sentenced to undergosix-six months' RI with fine of Rs.900/-each, with default stipulation.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the quarrel took place due to non returnable of loan amount. It is also submitted all the appellantsremained in custody for one day. He further submits that complainant-Suneelhas expired.
3. Learned counsel for the State has no objection if fine amount ofappellant and jail sentence is set aside.
4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of record and in considered view of this Court, the trial Court has properlyrecorded the conviction of the appellants as mentioned hereinabove. Hence,their conviction is hereby affirmed; however, regarding quantum of sentence, bysetting aside jail sentence and fine of the appellants, they are directed to depositcompensation of Rs.2,000/- to injured-Munnibai and Rs.2,000/- compensationto Dharmendra under Section 357 Cr.P.C in which the amount of Rs.900/-deposited in the trial Court by each appellant shall be treated as deposited as onground of compensation. If appellants deposit compensation amount asdirected hereinabove within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, as the jail sentence of appellants has already beensuspended, their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Rs.1,500/- each to be paidto injured Munnibai and Dharmendra only as complainant-Suneel has expired.
6. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of and rest of the impugnedjudgment is kept intact.
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned forinformation.
Adnan
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)JUDGE