Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/3228/2015 of DEEPAK AHIRWAR 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 DEVNARAYAN MISHRAON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3228 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
1.DEEPAK AHIRWAR S/O MUNNALAL AHIRWAR,AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, JAWAHAR WARD BINAP.S.BINA DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.MEERABAI W/O DEEPAK AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT25 YEARS, JAWAHAR WARD BINA P.S.BINA DISTT.SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY MR. AMIT JAIN - ADVOCATE) .
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH P.S.BINA DISTT.SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY MR. SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY - PANEL LAWYER )
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e 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.
ORDER
This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferredagainst a judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.11.2015passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bina, District-Sagar (M.P.) in S.T.No.338/2013 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 325read with 34 (on two counts) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year each on each count with fine of Rs.500/- each on eachcount with default stipulations.
2. Prosecution case in nutshell is that on 28.04.2013 at about 05:45 am,complainant Vatibai was cleaning her home and her daughter Nandaniconnecting motor pump in water supply line on that the appellants with otherco-accused persons came there and started abusing the complainant and whenshe objected them to abuse then, they assaulted the victim with sword and aniron rod and also assaulted her daughter with sticks and an iron rod as a result,they got injured. The complainant lodged an F.I.R at Police Station-Bina,District-Sagar and on that basis Police Station-Bina registered CrimeNo.245/2013 for an offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 294, 506, 34, 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant and injured person weremedically examined. The accused/appellants were arrested. After completion ofinvestigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court.
3. Trial Court framed charges against the appellants under Section 326read with 34 (on two counts) of the Indian Penal Code and read over to themwho abjured their guilt and prayed for trial.
4. The trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing both theparties convicted and sentenced them under Section 325 read with 34 (on twocounts).
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the case wasregistered on 28.04.2013 and appeal is pending since 2015. He has furthersubmitted that he has expressly gave up his challenge to the findings of theCourt below so far as the conviction of the appellants is concerned. In otherwords, the learned counsel for the appellants accepted the finding of convictionpassed against the appellants, however, he challenged the quantum ofpunishment (one year R.I on two counts) alone, therefore, he prayed that the jailsentence of the appellants be reduced suitably.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that afterappreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the trial Court hasrightly found guilty the appellants for the aforesaid offence, therefore, nogrounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellantshence, he prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
7. Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties andon perusal of the impugned judgment and other material on record, sincecounsel for the appellants has not pressed upon the conviction of theappellants, therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Section 325 readwith 34 (on two counts) of the Indian Penal Code is hereby affirmed.
8. So far as sentence is concerned, the incident took place 10 years agoand in the considered view of this Court, no fruitful purpose is going to beserved by sending the appellants to jail after about 10 years of the incident.
9. Consequently, appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of theappellants recorded by the trial Court under Section 325 read with 34 (on twocounts) of the Indian Penal Code is hereby affirmed. The jail sentence of theappellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them and fine amountimposed on the appellants is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/- on eachcount for each of the appellants. Thus, each of the appellants shall pay fineamount of Rs.10,000/- adjusting the previous deposited fine amount.
10. The appellants are directed to deposit the fine amount before theconcerned trial Court within 90 days from today. If the aforesaid fine amount isnot deposited within the stipulated time period, then the appellants shall undergosimple imprisonment of four months on each counts. The appellants are on bail,their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged subject to deposit of aforesaid fine amount.
11. In this case, there are two injured persons namely Vatibai andNandini and on fine being deposited, the trial Court shall pay Rs.3,000/- to eachof the injured persons as compensation.
12. The order of the trial Court regarding the seized property ismaintained.
13. The original record be kept in the connected matter.
14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below for informationand necessary compliance.
julie
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)JUDGE