Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/660/2003 of RADHESHYAM & ORS. Vs THE STATE OF M.P. 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 VIVEK JAINON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 660 of 2003
BETWEEN:-
1.RADHESHYAM, S/O SALIGRAM, AGED ABOUT 28YEARS, PROFESSION: LOHAR, R/O VILLAGECHIRCHIRA, P.S. ARI, DISTRICT SEOHI, MADHYAPRADESH.YEARS, PROFESSION: LOHAR, R/O VILLAGECHIRCHIRA, P.S. ARI, DISTRICT SEOHI, MADHYAPRADESH.
2.ROSHANLAL S/O SALIGRAM, AGED ABOUT 30YEARS, PROFESSION AGRICULTURIST, R/OVILLAGE CHIRCHIRA, P.S. ARI, DISTT. SEONI,MADHYA PRADESH.YEARS, PROFESSION AGRICULTURIST, R/OVILLAGE CHIRCHIRA, P.S. ARI, DISTT. SEONI,MADHYA PRADESH.
(NONE FOR THE APPELLANTS)
.....APPELLANTS
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S. ARI,DISTRICT SEONI.
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI BRIJENDRA KUSHWAHA - PANEL LAWYER FOR THERESPONDENT/STATE)
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
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellants/accused against theimpugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.03.2003passed by First A.S.J., Seoni in Session Trial No.62/2002, whereby the learnedtrial Judge has convicted the appellants for commission of offence underSection 452/34 of IPC and 323/34 of I.P.C. respectively sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.300/- andrigorous imprisonment for three months.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the incident occurred on29.03.2002. On that day, at around 01.00 p.m. in the afternoon, the accusedpersons reached the house of complainant Ishwari Prasad and demandedRs.500/- for some contribution. The complainant gave Rs.51/- for contributionand expressed inability to give Rs.500/-. This led to altercation between the twosides and the appellants are said to have hit Ishwari Prasad with sticks. Whenhis brother Keshav Prasad came to intervene, then he was also beaten withsticks.
3. The present appellants were charge-sheeted for commission of offence under Section 294, 450, 394, 342 and 506B of IPC but they have beenconvicted under Section 452, 323 and 34 of IPC. Charges were framed againstthe appellants/accused. Accused/appellants denied the charges and claimed tobe tried.
4. As per the evidence and the material adduced on behalf of theprosecution, the Trial Court found the offence to be proved for offences asmentioned in para-1 above.
5. This Court has gone through the entire evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. The prosecution has examined Ishwari Prasad PW-4, BarmanBai PW-5, Sharda Bai PW-6, Keshav Rao PW-16 and other witnesses. ThisCourt has carefully gone through the evidence of the material witnesses and eye-witnesses.
6. After having perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it isfound that the findings recorded by the Trial Court upholding the guilt of the accused-appellants are impeccable and the prosecution has succeeded inproving the case against the accused-appellants. There is nothing in crossexamination of the witnesses that may demolish the prosecution case. Thus,there is nothing in the said findings of the trial court that can be said to beerroneous or perverse, warranting interference by this Court in Appellatejurisdiction.
7. Thus, the conviction of the appellants as ordered by the trial court ishereby upheld.
8. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances that deserve to betaken in consideration so far as the sentence part is concerned. Theappellants/accused are first offender and the incident took place in the year2002 and accused/appellants had faced trial and this appeal is pending since2003, the accused/appellants had been under trial or appearing before the Courtas condition to suspension of sentence since long. Nothing has come on recordregarding misuse of conditions of bail/suspension of sentence during the longperiod since the prosecution, trial and appeal are pending. Thus, this Courtdeems it fit to reduce the sentence of the appellants to the period alreadyundergone by them (five days) and to enhance the fine amount to Rs.5,000/-(Five Thousand only) each.
9. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned convictionis maintained. However, the appellants/accused are sentenced to undergoimprisonment for the period they had already undergone (Five days), subject todepositing the further fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand only) eachwithin a period of three months from today.
10. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Courtis not deposited within a period of three months from today, then the original sentence would come into operation and appellants shall be taken into custodyor they would surrender themselves to serve the entire jail sentence of one yearas awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.
11. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
12. The bail bonds of the appellants/accused, if any, are discharged.
13. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court record alongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for informationand necessary compliance.
14. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.
veni
(VIVEK JAIN)JUDGE