Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 727 (MP)

Raju S/O Amansingh Bariya v. State Of M. P.

2009-06-24

N.K.MODY

body2009
JUDGMENT : Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 8-3-2006 passed by SJ, Jhabua in ST No. 151/2005 whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under section 323/34 and 324/34 of Indian Penal Code by sentencing them to undergo 6 months imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and 6 months imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each respectively, the present appeal has been filed. 2. In short the case of prosecution was that on 21-6-2004 when complainant/Pappu was at his home, at that time, Meharsingh who happens to be the Uncle of Pappu was beaten by appellant No. 2/Juwansingh. Further case of the prosecution was that appellant No. 3/Parsingh pelted stones on the complainant/Pappu and Suresh. Similarly, other appellants also pelted stones, resulting with Pappu sustained injuries. Upon the complaint, after investigation the case was registered and appellants were arrested and prosecuted. After framing of charges and recording of evidence, appellants were convicted as stated above, against which the present appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that appellants were convicted illegally while appellants have not committed any offence. It is submitted that the learned Court below committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence which resulted incorrect judgment and is liable to be set aside in this appeal. It is submitted that the learned Court below committed error in not considering material omissions and contradictions appearing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that upon the complaint of appellant No. 3/Parsingh, complainant/Pappu was also prosecuted under section 302, Indian Penal Code as Newarsingh of the appellant party was murdered. It is submitted that complainant/Pappu was the aggressor. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts the appeal filed by the appellant's deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside. 4. In alternative, it is submitted that appellants were in jail w.e.f. 11-7-2004 to 16-8-2004. Appellants were again in jail after conviction when the jail sentence was suspended by this Court. It is submitted that since appellants could not appear on the date fixed, therefore, they are again in custody since last 4 days. It is submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the fact that they have already served substantive part of jail sentence, the same may be reduced to the period already undergone. 5. It is submitted that since appellants could not appear on the date fixed, therefore, they are again in custody since last 4 days. It is submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the fact that they have already served substantive part of jail sentence, the same may be reduced to the period already undergone. 5. Learned counsel for respondent/State submits that after due appreciation of evidence, learned Court below has found the offence proved against the appellants, which required no interference. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants be dismissed. 6. From perusal of the record, it appears that learned Court below found that the appellants have committed offence for which the appellant have been convicted. Hence so far as conviction is concerned the judgment passed by the learned Court below is maintained. 7. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, looking to the limited prayer made by the counsel for the appellants and the nature of offence and the fact that complainant/Pappu was also prosecuted for an offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code and the fact that appellants have already served substantive period of jail sentence the purpose would be served in case the jail sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone, subject to depositing fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, totalling to Rs. 6,000/- appellants shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, for the State also agrees. 8. In the result appeal is partly allowed. The findings of conviction is hereby maintained with the modification to the extent that the jail sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone subject to depositing fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, totalling to Rs. 6,000/- appellants shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, in default the appellants shall suffer jail sentence awarded by the learned Court below. 9. With the aforesaid modifications, the appeal stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.