Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/5924/2017 of PREETAM SINGH 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 RAJENDRA KUMAR VANION THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5924 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
1.PREETAM SINGH S/O SHRI JAHAR SINGHGURJAR, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION:KARSHI R/O GRAM SUNVAI P.S DABRA DISTT.GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)GURJAR, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION:KARSHI R/O GRAM SUNVAI P.S DABRA DISTT.GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.RANVEER SINGH S/O PREETAM SINGH, AGEDABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURISTR/O GRAM SUNVAI P.S DABRA DISTT. GWALIOR(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI ARUN PATERIA- ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANTS
ANDTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION DABRA DISTT. GWALIOR (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ATUL SHARMA- PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)
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
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 (2) ofCr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10th October, 2017 passed bythe Special Judge (Atrocities), Gwalior, in Special Case No.4/2015 wherebyappellants have been convicted under Sections 323 & 325 or 325/34 of IPC andsentenced to undergo 3 months imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and 1 yearrigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- respectively with default stipulation.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not wish tochallenge the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offence. As regardssentence, it is submitted by learned counsel that the appellants have alreadysuffered incarceration of 4 days and they have been facing agony of trial for thelast 9 years. Appellant No.1 was 62 years of age at the time of incident and nowhe is more than 70 years old. Therefore, it is prayed that sentence of theappellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them whileenhancing the fine amount suitably.
3. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment, buthe has no objection on deciding the appeal on the point of sentence.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it is found that trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence onrecord and rightly convicted the appellants under Sections 323 & 325 or 325/34of IPC, hence, conviction of the appellants under Section 323 & 325 or 325/34of IPC needs no interference.
6. As regards sentence, looking to the facts and circumstances of the caseand evidence on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, ends of justicewould meet if while reducing the jail sentence of the appellants to the periodalready undergone by them, fine amount under Section 325 or 325/34 of IPC isenhanced to Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of theappellants under Sections 323 & 325 or 325/34 of IPC, jail sentence o f theappellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them and fine amountunder Section 325 or 325/34 of IPC is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-, which shall be deposited by them within a period of two months from today, failing which theappellants will have to suffer the sentence as awarded by the trial Court. Thefine amount already deposited by the appellants be adjusted against theaforesaid amount of fine. The fine sentence under Section 323 of IPC is herebyaffirmed. The entire amount of fine deposited by the appellants be paid to thecomplainant under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.
Ahmad
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)JUDGE