Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/2759/2011 of BILAL KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWALON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2759 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
1.BILAL KHAN S/O SALIM KHAN MUSALMAN,AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, ASHOK WARD SEONI(MADHYA PRADESH)AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, ASHOK WARD SEONI(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.IMRAN S/O SALIM KHAN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,ASHOK WARD, SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)ASHOK WARD, SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.FIRDAUS S/O SALIM KHAN, AGED ABOUT 18YE A R S , ASHOK WARD, SEONI (MADHYAPRADESH)YE A R S , ASHOK WARD, SEONI (MADHYAPRADESH)
4.ABDUL RAUP KHAN S/O ABDUL MANNAN KHAN,AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NAYA MOHALLA, SEONI(MADHYA PRADESH)AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NAYA MOHALLA, SEONI(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI SUNIL PANDEY - ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS)
.....APPELLANTS
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH TH. P.S. SEONI
DISTT. SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI DILIP SHRIVASTAVA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE)
This appeal coming on for final 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 appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. againstthe judgment of conviction dated 16.11.2011 passed by the IIIrd AdditionalSessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Seoni District - District Seoni in ST
No.54/2010, whereby learned trial Court found the appellants guilty for theoffence punishable under Section 323/34 (each) of IPC and directed them tosuffer R.I. for 01 year and fine of Rs.1000/- (each) respectively with defaultstipulations.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,Crime was registered against the appellants at Police Station Seoni, DistrictSeoni for commission of offence punishable under Sections 323/34 and 325/34of the IPC (each). After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filedbefore the competent Court.
3. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses andappreciating the evidence led by parties, learned trial Court found the appellantsguilty for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentencedthem as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, theappellants have preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants expressly gave up his challenge tothe findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellants isconcerned. In other words, learned counsel for the appellants accepted thefinding of conviction passed against the appellants, however, he challenged thequantum of punishment alone. The appellants are the first offender and counselassures that they will not involve in such criminal activities in future. Simpleinjury has been caused to the complainants. No minimum sentence has beenprescribed under Section 323. It is also submitted that counter case alsoregistered against the complainant bearing crime No.296/2009 under Section307 of IPC. Complainant has already been prosecuted under Section 307 in thisregard, he drew the attention of this Court towards para Nos.3 and 15 of thejudgment and from perusal of the same, the contention of learned counsel for appellants found correct that cross case has been registered against thecomplainant. He further submitted that under Section 323 imposing the jailsentence is not mandatory and Court has imposed maximum fine of Rs.1000/-which has been deposited by appellants. It is also submitted that having regardto all circumstances which resulted in appellants' conviction and further keepingin view the fact that the appellants are facing the trial since the year 2010 andappeal is pending since 2011, therefore, it has been prayed that the appellants bepunished with fine only.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that afterappreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Court below hasrightly found the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offence, therefore, nogrounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellants,hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entirerecord of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal in part upon finding someforce in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.
7. Though the appellants have not made any attempt to assail the findingof their conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether thefindings of the Court below of conviction is legally sustainable or not, I perusedthe record and especially therein having so perused, I am satisfied that no caseis made out to interfere in the findings of the Court below on merits. From theperusal of the record, it reveals that the finding of the trial court is based onproper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence therefore, upheld thefindings of conviction of appellants under Section 323 of IPC recorded by theCourt below.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants,however, looking to the facts that they are facing the trial since the year 2010,the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellantson record. There is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Section323 of the IPC, I deem it proper to set aside the jail sentence of appellants. Theappellants have already deposited the fine amount of Rs.1000/-. The appellantsare on bail, their personal bond and bail bond be discharged. Accordingly, theappeal is partly allowed.
9. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal appeal standspartly allowed and disposed of.
Let a copy of this order alongwith record be sent to the court below forinformation and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per Rules.
DPS
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)JUDGE