Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1138/2016 of BHAGWAN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGHON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1138 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
1.BHAGWAN SINGH S/O SHRI RATTI AHIRWAR,AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: KASTKARIAGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: KASTKARI
2.RUP SINGH S/O PARSHURAM AHIRWAR, AGEDABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: KASTKARI ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: KASTKARI
3.KISHUN LAL S/O ANTE AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: KASTKARI ALL R/O GRAM SYARI THANA UNNAV DISTRICTDATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI HARISH SHARMA - ADVOCATE )
.....APPELLANTS
ANDTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION UNNAV, DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SMT. KALPANA PARMAR - PANEL LAWYER )
.....RESPONDENTS
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
Appellants have filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. beingaggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25/10/2016passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Datia in S.T.No. 36/2014; whereby,learned trial Court while acquitting the appellants from charge of offence underSection 294, 324 in alternative 324/34 (three counts) of IPC and convicted the appellants/accused for offence under Section 323/34 (three counts) of IPC andsentenced them to undergo six months RI each on each count with fine of Rs.500/- each on each count and in default of payment of fine to further undergothree months RI each.
2. Although this appeal has been filed on merits but today, learnedcounsel for the appellants pressed the appeal only regarding sentence part isconcerned and do not press the conviction part as mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel for the State expressed no objection if the aboveprayer is allowed.
4 . Although, conviction part of the impugned judgment has not beenpressed on merits but to do substantial justice, judgment of the trial Court isperused, oral and documentary evidence seen and after perusing the judgmentas well as the record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has properlyrecorded the conviction of the appellants as mentioned hereinabove. Hence,their conviction is hereby affirmed; however, regarding quantum of sentence,while setting aside sentence part of the appellant as mentioned hereinabove, theyare directed to deposit compensation of Rs. 7,500/- each for complainantLayak Singh, Veersingh and Gabbarsingh under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. and iffine amount as imposed by the trial Court has already been deposited by theappellants, same be adjusted. If all appellants deposit compensation amount ofRs. 18,000/- as directed hereinabove within a period of 30 days from the dateof receipt of certified copy of this order, as the jail sentence of appellants hasalready been suspended, their bail bonds shall stand discharged and if they failsto deposit the compensation amount, they have to undergo total jail sentence ofone month each. Trial Court to ensure that all three victims as mentioned aboveto get Rs. 6,000/- each as compensation.
5. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part with the above observations.Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned forinformation.
JPS/-
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)JUDGE