Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1614/2001 of RAM PRASAD & 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 JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAINON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1614 of 2001
BETWEEN:-
1.RAM PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/ORANJIT SINGH R/O SAMGAON, PS. BALDIDISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH.2.VISHNU PRASAD S/O RAM PRASAD, AGED ABOUT43 YEARS, SAMGAON, PS. BALDI DISTRICTKHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)3.MONU @ BENI MADHAV S/O RAM PRASAD, AGEDABOUT 35 YEARS, KHIDKIYA, PS. KHIDKIYADISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)4.DHANPAL S/O GULAB SINGH, AGED ABOUT 26YEARS, R/O SOMGAON, PS. BALDI DISTRICTKHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)5.BANTI @ AJAY S/O VISHNU PRASAD, AGEDABOUT 18 YEARS, R/O SOMGAON, PS. BALDIDISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)6.KALU @ AJAY S/O VISHNU PRASAD, AGED ABOUT18 YEARS, R/O SOMGAON, PS. BALDI DISTRICTKHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(NONE )
.....APPELLANTS
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI AATMARAM BAIN - DY. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
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.
JUDGMENT
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 20.09.2001passed by Sessions Judge, East Nimar, Khandwa in Session Trial No. 129/99,whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellants No. 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6 for commission of offence under Sections 147 and 323. of IPC and sentencedthem to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and three months andfurther directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1000/-each, and appellant no. 2for offence punishable under Sections 148 and 324 of IPC and sentenced himto undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and six months and furtherdirected to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the incident has occurred on19.04.1999 at 11:00 PM in the night, the complainant PW/1 Balwant Singh wassitting near the ground outside of his house along with other persons of village,at that time the accused persons reached and started assaulting the complainantresulting in causing hurt to the complainant. The case was initially tried underSection 147, 148, 323 and 324 of IPC.
3. After trial appellants No. 1, 3 4,5, & 6 have been convicted forcommission of offence under Sections 147 and 323. of IPC and appellant No. 2has been convicted under Section 148 and 324 of IPC.
4. This Court has carefully gone through the entire evidence adduced onbehalf of the prosecution. The prosecution has examined PW/1 Balwant Singh,PW/2 Basanti Bai and PW/6 Ramdas and other witnesses.
5. 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.
6. Thus, the conviction of the appellants as ordered by the trial court ishereby upheld.
7. 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 year1999 and accused/appellant has faced trial and this appeal is pending since2001, the accused/appellants have been under trial or appearing before theCourt as condition to suspension of sentence since long. Nothing has come onrecord regarding misuse of conditions of bail/suspension of sentence during thelong period 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 and to enhance the fine amount to Rs. 5000/-
8. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned convictionis maintained. However, the appellants/accused are sentenced to undergoimprisonment for the period they have already undergone (appellants No. 1, 34,5, & 6-- seven days and appellant no. 2 -- four days), subject to depositingthe further fine amount of Rs.5,000/- each within a period of three months fromtoday.
9. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Court isnot 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 as awardedby the learned trial Court with default stipulations.
10. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
11. The bail bonds of the appellants/accused, if any, are discharged.
12. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court recordalongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for informationand necessary compliance.
13. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)JUDGEMISHRA