Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/9424/2019 of SANJU ALIAS SANJAY RAI 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 DEVNARAYAN MISHRAON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9424 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
SANJU ALIAS SANJAY RAI S/O BHAGWANDAS RAI,AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/ONEHRU SMRAK TILAK WARD, MANDLA THANA ANDDISTT. MANDL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI SANJAY TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S. MANDLAPOLICE STATION MANDLA, A.J.K. THANA MANDL,DISTT. MANDLA (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI PANKAJ RAJ - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT
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
This appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Criminal ProcedureCode being aggrieved of the judgment and finding recorded by the SpecialJudge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Mandla in Spl. S.T. No. 15/18dated 14/10/2019 by which the appellant has been convicted for offencepunishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentence to R.I. for six months andfine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation.
Facts in nutshell are that before the trial court, the chargesheet underSections 294, 323, 506 of I.P.C, 3(i) (r), 3(i) (s) and 3 (ii)(va) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act was submitted. The trial court after recording theevidence, acquitted the appellant from rest of the charges but convicted him forthe above offence and sentenced as above.
Learned counsel for the appellant has requested that in this case, onlytwo to three injuries were found on the person of complainant Bhuvan LalChoudhary. The appellant is a labourer. This was not a premeditated quarreland the appellant had not committed any cruelty. Looking to the short periodof sentence, no purpose will be served in keeping the appellant in jail as theappellant was already in custody for three days, so the jail sentence be reducedto the period already undergone and the fine amount be enhanced.
Learned Panel Lawyer has argued that if the conviction is maintained andthe jail sentence is reduced, he will have no objection.
I have gone through the record, particularly the prosecution evidence andthe documents annexed with and I am of the considered view that conviction ofthe appellant under Section 324 of I.P.C. is maintained.
On the point of sentence, it is apparent from the warrant of the trial courtthat the appellant was in custody for three days. No previous conviction is onrecord. The injuries are of simple nature and the jail sentence is not mandatoryin the above section. Hence, the jail sentence of the appellant for the offenceunder Section 324 of I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone and thefine amount is enhanced from Rs.2000/- to Rs.10,000/-. The previousdeposited fine amount before the trial court shall be adjusted in the fine amountas ordered above.
The appellant shall deposit the enhanced amount of fine within a periodof three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment, in default, heshall undergo S.I. for three months. On fine amount being deposited, complainant Bhuvanlal Choudhary S/o Dhooplal Choudhary resident of TilakWard, District Mandla shall be paid Rs. 5000/- as compensation amount.
The order of the trial court regarding compensation in para no. 28 of theimpugned judgment is modified as above. The order of the trial court regardingthe case property is approved.
With the above observation, the appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.Record of the trial court be sent back.
vy
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA) JUDGE