Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1606/2013 of SMT. SHOBHABAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGHON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1606 of 2013
BETWEEN:-
SMT. SHOBHABAI W/O SODANSINGH, AGED ABOUT 50YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE HOLD GRAM TIGRIYABADSHAH THANA BANGANGA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(SHRI AMIT SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT. THRU. P.S.BANGANGA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
(SHRI KAPIL MAHANT- 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
1
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 appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C has been preferredchallenging the order dated 01.11.2013 passed by IXth Additional SessionsJudge, Indore (M.P) in S.T No.703/2012. The appellant has been convictedunder Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 06 months R.I and fine ofRs.100/-with usual default stipulations.
2. The facts in brief are that appellant/accused Shobhabai was tried underSection 323 of IPC for causing voluntary injuries to Jorawar Singh on29.01.2012 at about 10:14pm at village Tigriya Badshah, Indore with three otherpersons arising out of Crime No.108/2012 registered at Police Station Banganga, District Indore.
3. This appeal has been preferred challenging the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant on the ground that the trial Court has committedan error in believing the testimony of Jorawar Singh and ignored thecontradictions between medical testimony and oral testimony.
Heard with the aid of amicus curiae Shri Amit Sharma on behalf of theappellant/accused and perused the record of trial Court.
4. In the light of Thaman Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh,
(2003) 6 SCC 380 the contradictions between medical testimony and oraltestimony is not significant and the trial Court has not committed an error inconvicting the appellant/accused under Section 323 of IPC and hence, theconviction under Section 323 of IPC of the appellant/accused is herebyaffirmed.
5. Trial Court has not appreciated the circumstances of the case thatappellant/accused is a lady and she has no criminal antecedents. The findingsunder para 20 of the judgment cannot be sustained. Looking to the nature of theincident, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and thecharacter of appellant/accused as first offender, it is expedient to release themon probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of OffendersAct, 1958.
6 . This appeal is partly allowed and conviction of appellant/accusedunder Section 323 of IPC is hereby affirmed. The finding of the trial courtregarding the sentence is modified and instead of sentencing theappellants/accused at once it is directed that appellants/accused be released onbail entering into bond with surety of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty ThousandOnly) to the satisfaction of the trial court within a period of 90 days to appear and receive sentence when called upon by the trial Court during a period of 3years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior.
7. With the aforesaid, the criminal appeal is disposed off.
C.C as per Rules.
akanksha
(GAJENDRA SINGH)JUDGE