Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1132 (MP)

HANUMANT SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2015-10-28

S.K.PALO

body2015
ORDER : S.K. Palo, J. Heard. 2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code by appellant, who has been held guilty by the Special Judge, Vidisha under SC/ST Act, 1989, in Special Case No. 111/2011 vide judgment dated 30.06.2015 and convicted under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced the appellant for till rising of the Court and imposed a fine of Rs.1500/-. In lieu of fine, he has to undergo sentence for one month simple imprisonment. He has also been convicted under Section 427 of IPC and sentenced to fine of Rs.500/- only. In lieu of fine, he has to undergo sentence for one month simple imprisonment. 3. The appellant has served the sentenced till rising of the Court. The appellant has deposited the fine amount. The appellant seems to be not aggrieved with the conviction and a limited prayer is made to remove the disqualification attached to the conviction. 4. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant was also charged under Section 294 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. However, he has been acquitted in these offences. The appellant has preferred this appeal on several grounds including the merits of the case. 5. Perusal of the judgment and the record of the trial Court show that the appellant and the other accused persons had a quarrel with Pran Singh on 11.04.2011 at about 05:45 PM at his shop. The quarrel began, when Pran Singh asked to pay for the price of goods earlier purchased. The impugned judgment dated 30.06.2015 has been pronounced with cogent reasons after elaborately discussed the case laws. 6. The impugned judgment calls for no interference. The conviction and sentence is maintained. 7. There is no material on the record to indicate that the appellant had any previous conviction. In absence of such conviction, the appellant is treated as first offender. He is entitled to be admitted to benefit of probation under Section 3 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958. 8. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, the nature of offence and the character of the appellant while maintaining his conviction, it is directed that he shall be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Act. 8. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, the nature of offence and the character of the appellant while maintaining his conviction, it is directed that he shall be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Act. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha, before whom the appellant is directed to appear within two weeks from today, shall release him after due execution of a bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to maintain good conduct for the next two years. 9. The appellant has filed documents showing that he has been selected to the post of "Sahayak Adhyapak" by order of Janpad Panchayat, Basoda dated 18.01.2013 and vide order dated 12.03.2015 he has been posted at Primary School, Khiriya. The benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958, is extended to the appellant following the case laws in Rajbir v. State of Haryana reported in (1985) SCC (Cri) 445 and Santosh v. State of M.P. reported in (2010) 3 MPHT 55 . 10. This Court is of the view that in the peculiar facts of the case, the conviction should not affect his service. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.