Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/9601/2018 of PRABHULAL 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 RAJENDRA KUMAR VANION THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9601 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
1.PRABHULAL S/O KISHANLAL LODA, AGED ABOUT55 YEARS,
2.RAMESH S/O PRABHULAL LODA, AGED ABOUT 35YEARS,
3.NAHAR SINGH S/O PRABHULAL LODA, AGEDABOUT 30 YEARS, ABOUT 30 YEARS, ALL R/O VILLAGE PAGDI, P.S. CHANCHODA,DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI RISHIKESH BOHRE - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICESTATION THROUGH P.S. CHANCHODA, DISTRICT GUNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI GIRRAJ SONI - 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
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 (2) ofCr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.11.2018 passed byAdditional Sessions Judge, Chanchoda, District Guna in Session TrialNo.142/2016 whereby appellants have been convicted under Section 323/34 ofIPC (on two counts) and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-, with default stipulation.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not wish to challenge the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offence. As regardssentence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that injuredpersons suffered simple injuries in the incident. It is further submitted that theincident is of the year 2012 and since then the appellants are facing the trial.Therefore, it is prayed that sentence of the appellant may be reduced till risingof the Court while enhancing the fine amount suitably.
3. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment, buthe has no objection on deciding the appeal on the point of sentence.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it is found that trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence onrecord and rightly convicted the appellants under Section 323/34 of IPC (ontwo counts), hence, conviction of the appellants under Section 323/34 of IPC(on two counts) needs no interference.
6. As regards sentence, looking to the facts and circumstances of thecase and evidence on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, ends ofjustice would meet if while reducing the jail sentence of the appellants till risingof the Court, the fine is enhanced to Rs.1,000/- under Section 323/34 of IPC(on two counts). Accordingly, the jail sentence of the appellants is reduced tillrising of the Court and fine amount be enhanced to Rs.1,000/- under Section323/34 of IPC (on two counts). Appellants are directed to remain presentbefore the trial Court within a period of 60 days from today to serve thesentence of till rising of the Court and within the aforesaid period also depositthe aforesaid fine amount, failing which the appellants will have to suffer the sentence as awarded by the trial Court. The fine amount, if any alreadydeposited by the appellants be adjusted against the aforesaid amount of fine.The entire amount of fine deposited by the appellants be equally distributed infavour of the injured persons as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.
Ahmad
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)JUDGE