Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/6429/2020 of UMMED SINGH Vs THE STATE OF M.P. on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDION THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6429 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
UMMED SINGH S/O RAM SAHAYPATEL, AGED ABOUT55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURER R/O. GRAMPADUA THANA MADHAVNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI AJAY KUMAR MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THR AARSHI KENDRAMADHAVNAGAR DISTT. KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI AMIT SHARMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE 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.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08/12/2020
passed by Fifth Additional District Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 109/2015, whereby,the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 325 and 323(two counts) of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI of 3 years, and SI of 1month respectively, with the default stipulations.
2. The incident was reported to the P.S. Madhav Nagar, district Katniwhere FIR (Exhibit-P/5) was registered on Crime No. 109/2015 under Section323, 324 and 506 of IPC. After completion of the investigation charge-sheetwas filed. Learned trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned herein above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the finding of conviction and sentence submits that learned trial Court has ignored serious anomalies,contradictions and omissions present in the testimony of the injured and otherprosecution witnesses and hence prays for acquittal. In the alternative limb ofthe prayer, he submits that appellant has remained in jail for 70 days. Incident isof year 2015, more than 8 years back. Appellant has no criminal antecedents,therefore, taking the lenient view, jail sentence may be reduced to the periodalready undergone.
4. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment andprays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
6. Evidence adduced in support of the allegations with regard to the offenceunder Section 325 and 323 of IPC is clear, cogent, consistent and free from anymaterial infirmity and anomaly. Testimonies of the injured Ramavatar (PW-1),Dhananjaya Singh (PW-2) and Balkishan Chouhan (PW-3) have been dulycorroborated with FIR (Exhibits-P/1) and MLC report, which are duly proved,therefore, finding of conviction cannot be interfered with and is herebyaffirmed.
7. As regards the sentence, the prayer made on behalf of the appellantappears to be reasonable. The incident took place more 8 years back. Theappellant faced trial and appeal during this long period of time. No criminalantecedents are attributed to the appellant, therefore, the period of jail sentencedeserves to be reduced to the period already undergone.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant is affirmed. The jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. Thefine amount imposed for offence under Section 325 is enhanced by Rs.3000/-,which will be deposited by the appellant within a period of two months from thedate of judgment of this Court, failing which, he will have to undergo RI forthree months. His bail bond and personal bond stand discharged.
9. Let record of the learned trial Court along with the copy of the judgment of this Court forthwith be sent back for compliance and necessary action.
C.C. as per rules.
K.S.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)JUDGE