Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/4982/2021 of KISHANLAL PATEL Vs THE STATE OF M.P 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 BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDION THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4982 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
KISHANLAL PATEL S/O RAMLAKHAN PATEL,, AGEDABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O VILLAGEGODRI NO.27, P.S. GARH, DISTRICT REWA M.P(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI SUBHAM YADAV - ADVOCATE )
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF M.P THR P.S. GARH DISTT. REWA M.P(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI AMIT SHARMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the 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.
JUDGMENT
This Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (or short "Code") assails the judgment and order dated13.08.2021 passed passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Rewa(M.P.) in ST No. 50 of 2018, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for theoffence under Sections 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.
2. T he incident was reported to the Police Station Gardh District Rewa(M.P.) where FIR (Ex.P-1) was recorded on Crime No. 260/2017 under Section294 & 307 of IPC. The investigation was set in motion and on its completion charge-sheet was filed. Learned trial Court after hearing the concerned partiesand on due appreciation of the evidence on record vide impugned judgment,convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned herein above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the conviction and sentencesubmits that,learned trial Court has failed to notice the serious anomalies,contradictions and omissions present in the testimony of prosecution witnesses.Therefore, appellant is entitled for acquittal. In the alternative limb of prayer, learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has no criminal antecedent.
He remained in jail from 09.08.2017 to 14.08.2017 i.e. for 05 days which findsplace at para-35 of the impugned judgment. Therefore, looking to the trivialnature of the incident and no criminal past of the appellant, taking the lenientview, jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.
4. Learned Government Advocate for the State supports the impugnedjudgment and prays for dismissal of this appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
6. The evidence adduced in support of the allegations with regard to offenceunder Section 323 of IPC is found to be clear cogent and consistent. The sameis free from any material infirmity and anomaly. The testimony of complainantJokhulal Bhujwa (PW-1) stands duly corroborated with First InformationReport (Ex.P-1) and also with the MLC report (Ex.P-5). Therefore, it cannot beaccepted that the learned trial Court has committed any error in recordingconviction for offence under Section 323 of IPC. Hence, the same is herebyaffirmed.
7. As regards the sentence, prayer made on behalf of appellant appears to bereasonable. The incident took place more than 06 years back. Appellant remained in jail for 05 days as mentioned herein above. No criminal antecedentsare attributed to the appellant. Therefore, period of jail sentence deserve to bereduced for the period already undergone.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of appellant underSection 323 of IPC is maintained, his jail sentence is reduced to the periodalready undergone. Appellant is on bail, his bail bond and personal bond shallstands discharged.
10. The record of the learned trial Court alongwith the copy of the judgementbe forthwith sent back to the learned trial Court for compliance and necessary action.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)JUDGEAmitabh