Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/635/2003 of RAVI KAHAR AND ANR. Vs THE STATE OF M.P. 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 VIVEK JAINON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 635 of 2003
BETWEEN:-
1.RAVI KAHAR, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O RAM SINGHKAHAR, R/O TALKESHRI, P.S. BABAI, TAHSILBABAI, DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD, MADHYAPRADESH.KAHAR, R/O TALKESHRI, P.S. BABAI, TAHSILBABAI, DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD, MADHYAPRADESH.
2.MANJHLE @ NARMADA KAHAR S/O RAM SINGHKAHAR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O TALKESHRI,P.S. BABAI TAHSIL AND BABAI DIST.HASHANGABAD, MADHYA PRADESH.KAHAR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O TALKESHRI,P.S. BABAI TAHSIL AND BABAI DIST.HASHANGABAD, MADHYA PRADESH.
(NONE FOR THE APPELLANTS)
.....APPELLANTS
ANDTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.BABAI, DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD.
(BY SHRI ANOOP SONKAR - PANEL LAWYER FOR THERESPONDENT/STATE )
.....RESPONDENT
This appeal coming on 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
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant/accused against theimpugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.03.2003passed by IIIrd A.S.J., Hoshanagabad in Session Trial No.355/2002, wherebythe learned trial Judge has convicted the appellants for commission of offenceunder Section 308 of IPC and Section 308 of IPC readwith 34 of I.P.C.
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine ofRs.250/- respectively.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the incident occurred on23.06.2002 at around 06.00 p.m. in the evening. The complainant Rajkumar hadgone to answer the call of nature and at that time, the appellant No.1 is said tohave quarreled with complainant that he has insulted appellant No.1. Both theappellants started quarreling with the complainant and appellant No.1 hit himwith his stick near his left ear. One stick hit him on left wrist and one stick hithim in the back. Both the appellants have been convicted under Section 308IPC.
3. The present appellants were charge-sheeted for commission of offenceunder Section 308 of IPC. Charges were framed against the appellants/accused.Accused/appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
4. As per the evidence and the material adduced on behalf of theprosecution, the Trial Court found the offence to be proved for offences asmentioned in para-1 above.
5. This Court has gone through the entire evidence adduced on behalf ofthe prosecution. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Krishna Kumar, PW-3Majboot Singh, and PW-1 complainant Rajkumar as well as medical witnessesi.e, PW-11 Dr. N. Hasan and other witnesses. This Court has carefully gonethrough the evidence of the material witnesses and eye-witnesses.
6. After having perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it isfound that the findings recorded by the Trial Court upholding the guilt of theaccused-appellant are impeccable and the prosecution has succeeded in provingthe case against the accused-appellant. There is nothing in cross examination of the witnesses that may demolish the prosecution case. Thus, there is nothing inthe said findings of the trial court that can be said to be erroneous or perverse,warranting interference by this Court in Appellate jurisdiction.
7. Thus, the conviction of the appellant as ordered by the trial court ishereby upheld.
8. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances that deserve to betaken in consideration so far as the sentence part is concerned. Theappellants/accused are first offender and the incident took place in the year2002 and accused/appellants had faced trial and this appeal is pending since2003, the accused/appellants have been under trial or appearing before theCourt as condition to suspension of sentence since long. Nothing has come onrecord regarding misuse of conditions of bail/suspension of sentence during thelong period since the prosecution, trial and appeal are pending. Thus, this Courtdeems it fit to reduce the sentence of the appellants No.1 & 2 to the periodalready undergone by them (36 days and 25 days respectively) and to enhancethe fine amount from Rs.250/- to Rs.5,000/-.
9. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned convictionis maintained. However, the appellants/accused are sentenced to undergoimprisonment for the period they have already undergone (36 days and 25 daysrespectively), subject to depositing the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- within aperiod of three months from today.
10. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Courtis not deposited within a period of three months from today, then the originalsentence would come into operation and appellants shall be taken into custodyor they would surrender themselves to serve the entire jail sentence of one yearas awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.
11. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
12. The bail bonds of the appellants/accused, if any, are discharged.
13. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court recordalongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for informationand necessary compliance.
14. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed anddisposed of.
veni
(VIVEK JAIN)JUDGE