Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/2982/2011 of JAI KISHAN 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 VINAY SARAFON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2982 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
1.JAI KISHAN S/O JAGNNATH LODHI, AGED ABOUT35 YEARS, VILL. TINSAI P.S. AHMEDPUR DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)2.MADHO SINGH S/O MUNSHILAL LODHI, AGEDABOUT 45 YEARS, TINSAI, P.S.AHMEDPUR,DIST.SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.ARJUN SINGH S/O MADHO SINGH, AGED ABOUT21 YEARS, TINSAI, P.S.AHMEDPUR, DIST.SEHORE(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI PRASANNAJEET CHATERJI-AMICUS CURIAE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH P.S. AHMEDPURSEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI AJAY TAMRAKAR-PANEL LAWYER)
.....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.
ORDER
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, the appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and orderof sentence passed by Sessions Judge, Sehore in S.T. No.322/2010 wherebythe appellants have been convicted under Sections 325 and 323 of Indian PenalCode and sentenced to undergo 6-6 months R.I. to each appellants and fine of Rs.500-500/- for each offence and in default, to further undergo RI 15 days and8 days respectively.
2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellant, Shri PrasannajeetChaterji, Advocate who is present in the court, has been requested to assist theCourt on behalf of the appellants as amicus curiae.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that theprosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial,the appellants remained in custody for one day. He prayed for acquittal of theappellants.
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 sessions Court has rightly convicted the appellantsunder Sections 325 and 323 of Indian Penal Code.
5. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal ofrecord, it appears that FIR was lodged at P.S. Ahmedpur District Sehore on6.6.2010 against the appellant and one Pappu @ Sumer by one RamswaroopVishwakarma which was registered as Crime No.96/2010 under Sections 323,325, 294, 506 of the IPC. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.However, as the cross case was triable by Sessions Court, therefore, the casewas committed to the Sessions Court. The prosecution has examined eightwitnesses. PW1-Ramswaroop , PW2-Jamna Prasad, PW3-Takhat Singhsupported the prosecution case and narrated the incident and involvement of theappellants. PW5-Dr.H.P. Singh explained the injuries sustained by victim,Jamna Prasad, Ramswaroop and Takhat Singh. PW 4 Dr. Manuhar Saxenadeposed that two teeth of Jamna Prasad were missing and one tooth was in halfbreak position.
6. Learned Sessions Judge after considering the statements of thewitnesses by judgment dated 13.12.2011 convicted the appellants under Section325 and 323 (two counts) of the IPC and sentenced as stated herein above,however, acquitted the co-accused Sumer Singh @ Pappu. the findingsrecorded by the learned Sessions Judge are based on due appreciation ofevidence and do not require any interference. The judgment of conviction andconviction under Section under 323, 325 of the IPC are upheld.
7. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year2010, the appellants remained in custody for some period, the prosecution hasnot brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellants on record, the crosscase arising out of same incident was registered wherein the injuries weresustained by the appellants and there is no minimum sentence has beenprescribed under Sections 325 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, I deem it properto reduce the jail sentence of the appellants to the extent of the period whichthey have already undergone and accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced andthe fine amount is maintained. The appellants are on bail, their personal bondsand bail bonds be discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
8. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of thejudgment.
P/-
(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE