Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1988/2004 of BABULAL PATEL AND ORS. Vs THE STATE OF M.P. 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. 1988 of 2004
BETWEEN:-
1.BABULAL PATEL S/O RAMKISHAN PATEL, AGEDABOUT 41 YEARS, DIST. PANNA (MADHYAPRADESH)2.JAGATRAJ PATEL S/O RAMKISHAN PATEL, AGEDABOUT 43 YEARS, VILLAGE KARAHIYA PSDEVENDRA NAGAR DIST. PANNA (M.P)3.RAMKISHAN PATEL S/O PYARE LAL PATEL, AGEDABOUT 74 YEARS, VILLAGE KARAHIYA PSDEVENDRA NAGAR DIST. PANNA (M.P)4.INDRAPAL PATEL S/O RAM KISHAN PATEL, AGEDABOUT 32 YEARS, VILLAGE KARAHIYA PSDEVENDRA NAGAR DIST. PANNA (M.P)
(BY SHRI SUDHAKAR PATEL - ADVOCATE )
.....APPELLANTS
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. DEVENDRA NAGARDIST. PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI VIJAY PANDEY - 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.
JUDGMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction dated31.10.2004 passed by First Additional Session Judge, Panna in S.T.
No.118/2002 whereby the appellant-Babulal has been convicted under Sections326 and 323 of IPC and appellant-Jagatraj Patel, Ramkishan Patel and IndrapalPatel were convicted under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I.for one and half year and fine of Rs.1000/- in default 6 months S.I., underSection 326 of IPC and Section 323 of IPC imposed fine of Rs.500-500/- indefault one month S.I.
2. Learned counsel for appellant submits that during pendency of thepresent appeal, appellant No.3 Ramkishan Patel has expired on 25.02.2008 andconsequently, prays for withdrawal of the appeal on behalf of Ramkishan Patel.
3. Prayer is allowed.
4. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn on behalf of Ramkishan Patel.
5 . The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that theprosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During trial,appellant No.1-Babu Lal and appellant No.2-Jagatraj Patel remained in custodyfrom 03.07.2002 to 29.08.2002. However, appellant No.4-Indrapal Patelremained in custody from 16.09.2002 to 07.10.2002. He prayed for acquittal ofthe appellant.
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 Session Judge has rightly convicted the appellant underSections 326 and 323 of IPC.
7. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal ofrecord, it appears that on 30.06.2002, Rajbhan Patel lodged a report against theappellant and two others at P.S. Devendra Nagar District-Panna registered asCrime No.79/02 under Sections 307, 323 and 143 of IPC and afterinvestigation, charge-sheet was filed. Prosecution examined 8 witnesses. PW-1
(Rajbhan Patel), PW-2 (Rambagas), PW-5 (Rajaram), PW-6 (Kamlesh Bai) andPW-7 (Santi Bai) narrated the incident and involvement of the appellants in thecrime whereas, PW-3 (Dr. P.N. Sharma) explained the injuries sustained byRambagas, Rajbhan, Kamlesh and Santi Bai. Nathu Singh and Rajesh Singhexamined as defence witnesses and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge afterconsidering the statement of witnesses by the judgment dated 30.10.2004convicted the appellant-Babu Lal under Sections 326 and 323 of IPC and otherappellants under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced as stated hereinabove. Afterconsidering the statements of the witnesses, it appears that the allegation againstJagatram Patel and Indrapal Patel were not sufficient to found them guilty forthe offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and consequently, theirconviction under Section 323 of IPC are set aside. Jagarram Patel and IndrapalPatel are acquitted from the charge of Section 323 of IPC. The witnessesnarrated the incident and the medical evidence is also available on record andthe finding in respect of commission of offence by Babu Lal Patel for causinggrievous hurt is based on due appreciation of evidence and, therefore, I do notfind any reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the learned SessionJudge in respect of Babu Lal Patel. The conviction of Babu Lal Patel underSection 323 and 326 of IPC are upheld.
8. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year2002, the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of theappellants on record, the appellant remained in custody from 03.07.2002 to29.07.2002, there is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Section323 and 326 of IPC, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of theappellant-Babulal to the extent of the period which they have already undergone, accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced. However, fine is enhanced for underSection 326 of IPC from Rs.1000/- to Rs.5000/-. The appellant shall depositthe enhanced amount of fine within a period of two months from today. Theappellant is on bail, his personal bonds and bail bonds be discharged.Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
9 . Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of thejudgment.
Shub
(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE