Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1197/2014 of ARUN VISHWAKARMA Vs GHASI RAM PATEL 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. 1197 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
ARUN VISHWAKARMA S/O BHAGIRATHVISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, VILLAGEBARAH P.S. MAHARAJPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI MAYANK SINGH - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
1.GHASI RAM PATEL S/O JEEWANLAL PATEL, AGEDABOUT 60 YEARS, BARAH P.S. MAHARAJPUR(MADHYA PRADESH)ABOUT 60 YEARS, BARAH P.S. MAHARAJPUR(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.STATE OF M.P. P.S. MAHARAJPUR VILLAGESIMARIYA P.S. MAHARAJPUR (MADHYASIMARIYA P.S. MAHARAJPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)
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 has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment passed by the II[nd] Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T. No.279/2012 dated 10[th] April, 2014 by which the appellant has been convicted forthe offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. and sentence to R.I. for six months andfine amount of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation.
The basic case against the appellant was that on 16/12/2011, complainant
Ghasiram was working on his field at Maharajpur, District Sagar. Thereafter,the appellant came and asked that who have passed the machine from his field. The complainant expressed his ignorance. On this, the appellant startedabusing him and when he objected, then the appellant hit the complainant bylathi, that injured his toe and leg.
He reported the matter to Police Station Maharajpur. The Police StationMaharajpur registered non-cognizable offence under Section 481/11 underSection 155 of the Cr.P.C.
The complainant filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, Deori. After that, the trial court after recording the evidence and hearingboth the parties, passed the impugned judgment and convicted and sentencedthe appellant as above.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no appeal ispending. The cross case is related to Section 326 and in that case, complainantwas convicted and punished. In this case, only two simple injuries were foundon the body of the complainant and the jail sentence is more strict in proportionto the act.
Learned Panel Lawyer has argued that if the conviction is maintained, hehas no objection in reducing the jail sentence.
After perusal of the judgment and evidence on record, the conviction ofthe appellant under Section 323 of I.P.C. is maintained and confirmed.
On this point of the sentence, it is proved from the case record that thequarrel started on the point that someone has passed the machinery from thefield of the appellant and he has queried to the complainant and the appellantwas having doubt that with connivance of the complainant, the machinery waspassed through his field and no premeditated and cruel act has been done by the appellant. Hence, the conviction under Section 323 of I.P.C. is maintainedand sentence of the appellant under Section 323 of I.P.C. is quashed.
The fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,000/-. Theappellant shall deposit the fine amount within a period of two months from thedate of receipt of copy of the judgment before the trial court, in defaultstipulation, S.I. for two months.
With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is disposed of.
Record of the trial Court be sent back along with the order of this court.
vy
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)JUDGE