Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/9900/2018 of BAIJU @ SHATRUGHAN PRASAD MISHRA 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 JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAFON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9900 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
BAIJU @ SHATRUGHAN PRASAD MISHRA S/OSHRAVAN KUMAR MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGEATRAILA-11, POLICE STATION SOHAGI DIST. REWA(MADHYA PRADESH)
DEEPAK SAHU @ BADKU, S/O BRAJVASI SAHU, AGEDABOUT 25 YRS, OCCUPATION; LABOUR, R/O SATPURAPATEL BASTI (BHARAT NAGAR) P.S. SHANKARGARH,DIST. ALLAHABAD (U.P)
(BY MS. PAPIYA GHOSH - AMICUS CURIAE)
.....APPELLANTS
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHPOLICE STATION SOHAGI REWA (MADHYAPRADESH)
2.DEEPAK SAHU @ BADKU S/O BRAJVASI SAHU,AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURSATPURA PATEL BASTI BHARAT NAGAR P.SSHANKARGARH (UTTAR PRADESH)
(BY SHRI G.S. THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
.....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 appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction dated06.12.2018 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Teonthar District - Rewa in S.T.
No.100154/2016 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section323/34 and under Section 324/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. 6-6months and fine of Rs.500-500/- in default 1-1 month R.I.
2. No one is present on behalf of appellants. Ms Papiya Ghosh-Advocateis present in the Court and has been requested to assist on behalf of appellantsas amicus curiae.
3. The learned amicus curiae for the appellants has submitted that theprosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial,the appellant No.1-Baiju remained in custody from 09.07.2016 to 07.12.2016and appellant No.2 Deepak Sahu remained in custody from 09.07.2016 to29.09.2016. He prayed for acquittal of the appellants.
4 . Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Statesupported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved theincident and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants underSections 324/34 & 323/34 of Indian Penal Code.
5. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of record, it appears that on 08.07.2016, a report was lodged by Rangdev Guptaagainst the appellants and two others which was registered as Crime No.115/2016 at Police Station- Sohagi District- Rewa, under Sections 382, 458, 34of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. PW-2(Rangdev Gupta), PW-3 ( Sonam Gupta) duly supported the prosecution caseand narrated the incident and involvement of the appellants. PW-1 (Dr. ShyamBihari) explained the injuries sustained by injured Rangdev Gupta, PradeepKumar Gupta and Sonam Gupta. However, accepted that the injuries weresimple in nature. Learned Session Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses and material available on record by judgment dated 06.12.2018acquitted the co-accused Jaggu @ Yagyabhan Tiwari and Ramesh Kushwahaand also acquitted the appellants from the charges punishable under Sections458, 394 of IPC however convicted under Section 323/34 and 324/34 of IPCand sentenced as stated hereinabove. The offences recorded by learned SessionJudge based on due appreciation of evidence and do not require anyinterference. The judgment of conviction and conviction under Section 323/34and under Section 324/34 of IPC are upheld.
6. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year2016, the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of theappellants on record, the appellants remained in custody for considerable time,there is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Sections 323 and 324of Indian Penal Code, I deem it proper to set aside the jail sentence of theappellants and accordingly, the jail sentences are set aside. However, fineamount Rs.500/- is maintained and shall be deposited (if not already paid)within a period of two months from today. The appellants are on bail, theirpersonal bonds and bail bonds be discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is partlyallowed.
7 . Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of thejudgment.
Shub
(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE