CRA/470/2017 of PAPPI KHAN @ HADDI @ AYUB KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR on 29 December 2023

ORDER

This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 of Cr.P.C.being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.03.2017 passed by the Special Judge(Prevention of Atrocities) Sheopur in Special Session Trial No.200013/2016

whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C andsentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-each, Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one month of RI withfine of Rs.100/- each and Section 341 of IPC and sentenced to undergo onemonth of RI with fine of Rs.100/- each with default stipulations.

2. In brief case of the prosecution case is that on 27.08.2015 at about9:00 PM, complainant Anil Jatav was going to his home Chenpura from themarket in an auto, then accused Asfaq @ Kabutar, Pappi Khan stopped theauto and pulled him out of the auto and beat him along-with auto driver BalramJatav. When he objected, they abused the complainant and committed marpeetwith him. His sister-in-law Jyoti and his brother-in-law Sonu, who were alsotraveling in the same auto, saved him. Thereafter accused persons abused himin the name of caste and threatened to kill him. On the report, FIR wasregistered and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in theCourt. Charges were framed against accused persons which they denied andrequested for trial. After trial, appellants have been convicted and sentenced asaforesaid.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/accused submitted that he does not wish to challenge the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offence. Asregards sentence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants thatappellants have already suffered 01 day jail sentence and they have been facingagony of trial since 2015 for a period of near about 08 years. It is furthersubmitted that complainant suffered simple injury in the incident. Therefore, it isprayed that sentence of the appellants may be reduced to the period alreadyundergone while enhancing the fine amount suitably.

4. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment but he has no objection on deciding the appeal on the point of sentence.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. 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 Sections 324, 323/34 and 341of the I.P.C. hence, conviction of the appellants under Sections324, 323/34 and341 of the I.P.C. needs no interference.

7. 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 to theperiod already undergone by them, the fine is enhanced to Rs.2500/- underSection 324 of the I.P.C, Rs.1000/- under Section 323/34 of IPC and Rs.1000/-under Section 341 of IPC. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of theappellants under Section 324, 323/34 and 341 of the I.P.C. jail sentence of theappellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them and fine amountis enhanced to Rs.2500/- under Section 324 of the I.P.C, Rs.1000/- underSection 323/34 of IPC and Rs.1000/- under Section 341 of IPC which shall bedeposited by them within a period of three months from today, failing which theappellants will have to suffer the sentence as awarded by the trial Court. Thefine amount, if any already deposited by the appellants be adjusted against theaforesaid amount of fine. The entire amount of the fine deposited by theappellants be paid to the complainant/injured as compensation under Section357 of Cr.P.C.

8. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)JUDGE