Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1681/2022 of RAJKUMAR 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 DEVNARAYAN MISHRAON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1681 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
RAJKUMAR S/O CHETRAM JANGADE, AGED ABOUT 25YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O BADORA BETULP.S. BETUL BAZAAR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BETUL M.P.(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY MR. VIKASH CHOUKSEY - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
( MR. SOURABH SHUKLA -PANEL LAWYER)
.....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.
ORDER
This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferredagainst a judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.01.2022passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preventionof Atrocities) Act, 1989 District-Betul (M.P.) in SCATR No.64/2018 wherebythe appellant has been convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Codeand sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/-, under Section
323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three monthswith fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulations.
2. Prosecution case in nutshell is that on 15-16.04.2018, the appellantowing to filling of straw started abusing and assaulting Ankit with lathi and whenthe complainant went to save him then, the appellant also assaulted him. Thecomplainant lodged a written complaint at Police Station-A.J.K., District-Betuland on that basis Police Station-A.J.K., Betul registered Crime No.05/2018 foran offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 325, 506 of the Indian PenalCode and under Section 3(1)(da), (gh) of the Scheduled Castes and ScheduledTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The complainant and Ankit weremedically examined. The accused/appellant was arrested. After completion ofinvestigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court.
3. Trial Court framed charges against the appellants under Section 294(ontwo counts), 323, 325, 506(Part-II)(on two counts) of the Indian Penal Codeand under Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of the Scheduled Castes and ScheduledTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and read over to him who abjuredhis guilt and prayed for trial.
4. The trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing both theparties acquitted the appellant from an offence punishable under Sections294(on two counts), 506(Part-II) (on two counts) of the Indian Penal Code andSection 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 but convicted and sentenced him underSections 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the case wasregistered on 16.04.2018 and appeal is pending since 2022. He has furthersubmitted that he has expressly gave up his challenge to the findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellant is concerned. In otherwords, the learned counsel for the appellant accepted the finding of convictionpassed against the appellant, however, he challenged the quantum ofpunishment (one year R.I and two months), therefore, he prayed that the jailsentence of the appellant be reduced suitably.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that afterappreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the trial Court hasrightly found guilty the appellant for the aforesaid offence, therefore, nogrounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellanthence, he prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
7. Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties andon perusal of the impugned judgment and other material on record, sincecounsel for the appellant has not pressed upon the conviction of the appellant,therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 325 and 323 is herebyaffirmed.
8. So far as sentence is concerned, the incident took place 05 years agoand in the considered view of this Court, no fruitful purpose is going to beserved by sending the appellants to jail after about 05 years of the incident.
9. Consequently, appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of theappellant recorded by the trial Court under Sections 325 and 323 of the IndianPenal Code is hereby affirmed. The jail sentence of the appellant is reduced tothe period already undergone by him and fine amount imposed on the appellantunder Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code is enhanced from Rs.500/- toRs.10,000/- and under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is enhanced fromRs.200/- to Rs.1,000/-.
10. In this case, there are two injured persons namely Pawan and Ankitand on fine being deposited, the trial Court shall pay Rs.3,000/- to Pawan andRs.5,000/- to Ankit as compensation.
11. The appellant is directed to deposit the fine amount before theconcerned trial Court within 90 days from today adjusting the prior depositedfine amount. If the aforesaid fine amount is not deposited within the stipulatedtime period, then the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment of fourmonths and one month respectively. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds andsurety bonds stand discharged subject to deposit of aforesaid fine amount.
12. The order of the trial Court regarding the seized property ismaintained.
13. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately along with a copyof this judgment for information and necessary action.
julie
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)JUDGE