CRA/129/2022 of SURENDRA SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023

JUDGMENT

By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, the appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and orderof sentence passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act, 1989), District Sagar inSpecial SCATR No.200031/2014 on 24.12.2021 whereby the appellants havebeen convicted under Section 341 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one monthS.I. and fine of Rs.200/- and in default, to further undergo one month S.I. and

under Section 325/34 (two counts) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced toundergo one year R.I. and fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default, to furtherundergo R.I. for six months to each appellant.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that theprosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial,the appellant Surendra Singh remained in custody from 12.12.2013 to13.12.2013 and 18.09.2019 to 19.9.2019. The appellant Vikram Singh remainedin custody from 12.12.2013 to 13.12.2013. He prayed for acquittal of theappellants.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Statesupported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved theincident and the learned sessions Court has rightly convicted the appellantsunder Sections 341 and 325/34 of Indian Penal Code.

4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal ofrecord, it appears that the FIR was lodged by Sabbibai at Police Station Ajak,District Sagar against the appellants on 12.10.2013 registered as CrimeNo.6/2013 under Sections 323, 294, 341, 336, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Codeand Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, 1989. After investigation, the police filed thecharge-sheet. The prosecution examined 08 witnesses in support of their case.PW-1 Sapna, PW-2 Sabbibai and PW-3 Chandrasakhi supported theprosecution case and narrated the incident and involvement of the appellants.PW-5 Dr. Pramise Jain and PW-6 Dr. R.C. Mishra duly explained the injuriessustained by Sapna, Sabbibai and Chandrasakhi. PW-2 Sabbibai sustainedfracture in clavicle bone of left shoulder whereas PW-1 Sapna sustainedfracture in left humerus bone. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, afterconsidering the statement of the witnesses and material available on record, by judgment dated 24.12.2021, convicted the appellants under Sections 341 and325 (2 counts) of I.P.C. and sentenced as stated herein above. After examiningthe statement of the witnesses and other material available on record, I do notfind any reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the learned AdditionalSessions Judge. The findings recorded by the learned Additional SessionsJudge appears to be based on due appreciation of evidence and consequently,the judgment of conviction and sentence under Sections 341 and 325 are herebyupheld.

5. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year2013, the appellants remained in jail and the prosecution has not brought anypast criminal antecedents of the appellants on record. There is no minimumsentence has been prescribed under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code, and theincident happened all of a sudden, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentenceof the appellants to the extent of the period which they have already undergoneand accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced. However, fine is enhanced fromRs.1000/- to Rs.3000/- for each count each appellant under Section 325 andmaintain the fine amount under Section 341 of I.P.C. The appellants shalldeposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from today. Thefine amount be paid to the victims by the trial Court as compensation underSection 357 of Cr.P.C. The appellants are on bail, their personal bonds and bail bonds be discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.

5. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of thejudgment.