Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/7108/2022 of HEMANT TIWARI 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 DEVNARAYAN MISHRAON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7544 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
VIKRAM PRATAP SINGH @ VICKY S/O SHRI PRAHLADSINGH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATEWORK RESIDENCE OF CAMP UMARIA DISTRICTUMARIA (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
(MR. BHOOP SINGH PATEL - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION UMARIA DISTRICT UMARIA M.P. (MADHYAPRADESH)
( MR. SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7108 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
HEMANT TIWARI S/O RATAN TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 37YEARS, OCCUPATION: JOURNALIST R/O NEW BLOCKDAFAI, BIRSINGHPUR PALI, DISTRICT UMARIA (M.P.)(MADHYA PRADESH)
(MR. SANJAY KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION UMARIYA DISTRICT UMARIA (M.P.) (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
( MR. SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY - PANEL LAWYER)
These both the appeals are arising out of same judgment hence boththe appeals coming for hearing this day, the 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
The appellants have filed the appeal being aggrieved by the judgment andfinding dated 10.08.2012 passed by Sessions Judge Umariya in S.T.No.6/2017by which the appellant- Hemant Tiwari have been convicted for offence 341 (2counts) and appellant - Vikram Pratap Singh have been convicted forpunishable under Section 323 (2 counts) and sentenced to undergo threemonths, S.I (2 counts) and fine amount Rs.1,000/- & Rs.1,000/- for each (count).
2. Basic facts before the trial Court was that the appellants after making common intention restrained complainant and caused injuries to him and alsothreatened them on report P.S Umariya, has registered Crime No.328/2016under Section 323, 307 read with 34 of IPC and under Section 25 of the ArmsAct.
3. After trial, the Court has acquitted the appellants from the rest of thecharges but has convicted the appellant Hemant Tiwari, for offence 341 and323 (2 counts) Vikram Pratap Singh for 323 (2 counts).
4. Learned counsel for the appellants have argued that the appellants havealready suffered jail sentence for 1 months and 7 days, and the offence i.e.proved is only causing the simple injury, no purpose would be served by thesending the appellants to the custody.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has argued that ifthe conviction is maintained and the fine amount is enhanced he has noobjection in reducing the jail sentence.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. In this case there are two injured namely, Purushottam Tiwari and hisWife Sadhna Tiwari, this incident the Purushottam Tiwari has suffered fiveinjuries and Sadhna Tiwari has sustained one injury, looking to the facts andcircumstances and the evidence on record, the conviction of the appellant-Hemant Tiwari under Section 341 & 323 (2 counts) and appellant - VikramPratap Singh under Section 323 for (2 counts) is maintained.
8. As per record of the trial Court appellant Hemant Tiwari was incustody from 30.06.2016 to 05.08.2016 and on 03.03.2022. Appellant - Vikram Pratap Singh was also in custody on 07.09.2016 and on 03.03.2022. Looking tothe short sentence the jail sentence of the appellant - Hemant Tiwari underSection 323 is reduced the period already undergone in the same way the jailsentence of the Vikram Pratap Singh @ Vikki under Section 323 (on 2 counts)is reduced to the period already undergone.
9. The trial Court has imposed maximum fine hence no amendment in thefine amount, in default of depositing the fine amount the appellant shall serve thejail sentence as order by the trial Court. The appellants shall deposit the fineamount if not deposited, before the trial Court. The order of the trial Courtregarding seized property is maintained. The order of trial Court regarding thecompensation is maintained.
10. Consequently, the appeals are partly allowed.
1 1 . The order of the trial Court regarding the seized property ismaintained.
12. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately along with a copyof this judgment for information and necessary action.
SN
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)JUDGE