Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1727/2021 of BALWANTSINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGHON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1727 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
BALWANTSINGH S/O MANGUSINGH RAJPUT, AGEDABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURISTGRAM CHITAVAD, TEHSIL MAHIDPUR, DIST. UJJAIN(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI ANURAG VYAS, COUNSEL THROUGH LEGAL AID.)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSEOFFICER THRU. P.S.MAHIDPUR, DIST. UJJAIN(MADHYA PRADESH)
(SHRI KAPIL MAHANT, PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed thefollowing:
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 criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filedfeeling aggrieved by the judgment of Second Additional Sessions Judge,Mahidpur, District - Ujjain in Sessions Trial No.179/2019, whereby the appellanthas been convicted under Sections 326 and 324 of IPC and sentenced toundergo RI for 01 year with fine of Rs.1,000/- and RI for 06 months with fineof Rs.500/- and under Section 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act and sentenced toundergo RI for 01 year with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.
2) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/accused was tried alongwith his father Mangusingh Rajput in Crime No.289/2019 registered inPolice Station Mahidpur, District Ujjain under Sections 307, 326, 294, 506 and34 of IPC and Section 25(1-B)(B) of Arms Act, 1959. It is stated that on14.08.2019, at around 02:45 PM, Mahidpur, District Ujjain, both accusedBalwant Singh and Mangu Singh Rajpurt caused injuries to Shyam Singh andIshwar Singh with intent to caused death of Inder Singh and Shyam Singh usinga sword. After investigation, a final report was submitted and the accused wastried by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur, District Ujjain as S.T.No.179/2019. The prosecution examined victims Shyam Singh (PW-1), Ishwar(PW-2), Sandeep Singh (PW-3), Mangu Singh (PW-4), Libin Khes (PW-5),J.P. Sharma (PW-6), R.S. Dhakad (PW-7), Dr. Atul Sharma (PW-8), RahulRawat (PW-9). The trial Court has acquitted the appellant/accused BalwantSingh from the charges under Sections 307 (2 counts), 294 and 506 Part-II ofIPC but convicted under Sections 326 and 324 of IPC and Section 25(1-B)(B)of Arms Act, 1959 and passed the sentence as per para 1 of judgment.
3) Challenging the judgment dated 18.02.2021, this appeal has been preferred on the ground that the trial Court has erred in convicting theappellant/accused.
4) Perused the record of the trial Court.
5) Victim Shyam Singh (PW-1) and Ishwar (PW-2) has not supportedthe prosecution case and stated that Ishwar (PW-2) sustained injuries due to fallon seed drill machine and Shyam Singh (PW-1) also sustained injuries due tofall. Sandeep Singh (PW-3) and Mangu Singh (PW-4) also has not supportedthe case of prosecution. Trial Court has based the conviction of theappellant/accused on the testimony of Dr. R.S. Dhakad (PW-7). He has onlyexamined the victims. The findings of the trial Court regarding conviction of appellant/accused cannot be maintained in the light of testimony of injuredShyam Singh (PW-1) and Ishwar (PW-2).
6) This appeal is allowed and the conviction of the appellant BalwantSingh under Section 326 and 324 of IPC and Section 25(1-B)(B) of Arms Act, 1959 is set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted from the charges. If the prosecution case of Sections 326 and 324 of IPC fails, resultantly theprosecution under Section 25(1-B)(B) of Arms Act, 1959, would also fail in thelight of Sumersinbh Umedsinh Rajput @ Sumersinh Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2008 (1) Crimes 57. Paragraph-15 is being reproduced as under :- "15. If the prosecution case of attempt to murder of PW-8 by gunshort injury fails, resultantly, the prosecution under Section 25 ofthe Arms Act would also fail."short injury fails, resultantly, the prosecution under Section 25 ofthe Arms Act would also fail."
7) The appellants/accused are on bail and therefore, bail bonds and
surety be discharged. Fine amount if any, deposited be returned back to theappellants/accused.
8) Accordingly, this criminal appeal stands disposed of.
Shruti
(GAJENDRA SINGH)JUDGE