CRA/914/2012 of KALYAN SINGH AND 2 ORS. Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL

ON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 914 of 2012

BETWEEN:-

KALYAN SINGH, S/O JASWANT SINGH RAJPUT AGE 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE 1.R/O VILLAGE RALAYTA HAVAT, THANA GHATIYA DISTRICT - UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

KANCHANSINGH S/O JASWANTSINGH AGE 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE 2.R/O VILLAGE RALAYATA HEWAT PS-GHATIYA DISTRICT-UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANTS

(MR. NAVNEET KISHORE VERMA, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS)

AND

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE POLICE-STATION-GHATIA DISTRICT-UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT

(MS. HARSHLATA SONI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)

This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:

J UD G M E N T

With the consent of counsel for the parties, matter is finally heard.

(2) Appellants have preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challengingjudgment dated 01.08.2012 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST)Act, 1989 in Special Case No.83/2010 convicting andsentencing the appellants, as under:-

(3) Learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset, hassubmitted that he is not challenging the impugned judgmenton merits but is confining his arguments with respect tosentence only.

(4) I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and haveperused the record of the case.

(5) So far as the conviction is concerned, I have gonethrough the evidence adduced by the prosecution andexamined it minutely. A perusal of the evidence on record reveal that findings recorded by the trial Court with respect toconviction of appellants under Section 294, 323/34 and506(Part-II) of IPC are well founded and no interference iscalled for in the findings recorded by the trial Court withrespect to conviction of appellants, as mentioned above.Hence, the findings of trial Court with respect to conviction ofappellants are affirmed.

(6) So far as sentence is concerned, a perusal of impugnedjudgment reveals that learned trial Court has sentenced theappellants, as mentioned above. The present appeal relates toincident dated 30.06.2010. There are no criminal antecedentsof appellant. Hence, in view of above and taking intoconsideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case,ends of justice would be served, if sentence of imprisonmentis set-aside and appellants are sentenced with enhanced fineamount only.

(7) In view of above, appeal filed by appellants is partlyallowed and sentence of imprisonment under Section 323/34and 506 (Part-II) of IPC is set-aside and fine amount underSection 506 (Part-II) of IPC is enhanced to Rs.3000/- andeach appellant is sentenced with fine of Rs.3000-3000/- i.e.total Rs.6000/- under Section 506 (Part-II) of IPC. Afterrealization of fine amount, each injured shall be givenRs.2000/- as compensation.

(8) The appellants are directed to deposit the aforesaidamount within three months from today failing which theyshall surrender before the trial Court to undergo sentence ofimprisonment imposed by trial Court. Fine amount, if anyalready deposited, shall be adjusted against the enhanced fineamount.

(9) With the aforesaid, the appeal stands partly allowed tothe extent as indicated herein above.

(10) Certified copy, as per Rules.

Arun/-

(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL) J U D G E

Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF ARUN MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, 2.5.4.20=d5b56e3de75e7828ced1a96bc4f01804c3ea1f0a5497e4019e41c0a82cbabbf0, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=192F2423E128DC1CC004DD8FF22B3F2FFC3D1EF75981FCBEF3B2B76823F270F7, cn=ARUN NAIR NAIRDate: 2023.12.29 16:44:59 +05'30'