Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/7967/2021 of BALWAN SINGH @ ANNU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWALON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7967 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1.BALWAN SINGH @ ANNU S/O VIJAY SINGHRAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:LABOUR R/O VILL. KARMAI, P.S. NOORGANT ATPRESENT R/O VILL. SARAKIYA, P.S. MANDIDEEP,DISTT. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.RAHULA S/O AMAR SINGH RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT23 YEARS, VILLAGE SARAKIYA PS MANDIDEEP(MADHYA PRADESH)3.RAGHUVEER SINGH S/O MANOHAR SINGHRAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, VILLAGESARAKIYA PS MANDIDEEP (MADHYA PRADESH)4.SULTAN SINGH S/O DHANNALAL NAYAK, AGEDABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURISTVILLAGE SARAKIYA PS MANDIDEEP (MADHYAPRADESH)(BY SHRI D.K. SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANTS
ANDTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. MANDIDEEP DISTT. RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)
THR. P.S.
(BY SHRI DINESH PATEL - DY. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
.....RESPONDENT
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 has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raisen, District Raisen in SC ATR No.200021/2016, wherebylearned Special Judge found the appellants guilty for the offence punishableunder Section 325/34 of IPC and directed to suffer R.I. for one year with fineof Rs.1,000/- under Section 323/34 of IPC and directed to suffer R.I. for sixmonths with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,Crime was registered against the appellants at Police Station Mandideep,District Raisen for commission of offence punishable under Sections 325/34,325, 323/34 of IPC and in alternative Sections 323, 294, 506-II of IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filedbefore the competent Court.
3. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses andappreciating the evidence led by parties, learned trial Court found the appellantsguilty for the offence punishable under Sections 325/34 of IPC and 323/34 ofIPC and sentenced them as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with theimpugned judgment, the appellants have preferred this criminal appeal beforethis Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants expressly gave up their challenge to the findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellant isconcerned. In other words, learned counsel for the appellants accepted thefinding of conviction passed against the appellants, however, he challenged thequantum of punishment alone. It is further submitted that complainant party alsocaused injuries to the appellants. In this regard, cross case against complainantsnamely, Jitendrda, Balram, Arun, Pritam and Chhotu is also pending u/Ss.294,323 and 506-II of IPC before the Court of JMFC, Gauharganj. It is submitted that the appellants are the only earning person in their family, they are the firstoffender and counsel assures that they will not involve in such criminal activitiesin future. It is also submitted that having regard to all circumstances whichresulted in appellants' conviction and further keeping in view the fact that theappellants were facing the trial since the year 2016, therefore, he prayed thattheir jail sentence be reduced suitably.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that afterappreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Courts below haverightly found the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offence, therefore, nogrounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellants,hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entirerecord of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal in part upon finding someforce in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.
7. Though the appellants have not made any attempt to assail the findingof their conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether thefindings of the Court below of conviction is legally sustainable or not, I perusedthe record and especially therein having so perused, I am satisfied that no caseis made out to interfere in the findings of the Court below on merits. From theperusal of the record, it reveals that the finding of the trial Court is based onproper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence therefore, upheld thefindings of conviction of appellants under Section 325/34 of IPC and 323/34 ofIPC recorded by the Court below.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants andperiod of jail sentence already undergone by appellants, which is about 2 daysas on date and the fact that they have no previous criminal antecedents and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of theconsidered view that the ends of justice would be met if the appellantssentenced for the period already undergone by them with some enhancement inthe fine amount.
9. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned convictioni s hereby maintained. However, the jail sentence imposed on appellants isreduced to the period already undergone by them and the sentence of fine isenhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.4,000/- under Section 325/34 and sentence offine is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.1000/- under Section 323/34 of IPC,which shall be deposited within a period of one month. In default of payment ofenhanced fine amount within the stipulated period, the appellants shall suffer 1month R.I. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged. Amountof fine, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted.
10. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal appeal standspartly allowed and disposed of.
Let a copy of this order alongwith record be sent to the court below forinformation and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per Rules.
Sateesh
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)JUDGE