Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 117 (MP)

Anil v. State of M. P.

2020-01-21

S.K.AWASTHI

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been filed under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code) by the appellants against impugned judgment dated 21.5.2019 passed by Special Judge (SC ST Act), Ujjain, District Ujjain (MP) in Special Sessions Trial No.98/2013, whereby the appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and each of them has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. The prosecution story, in short, is that on 22.3.2013 complainant Deepak s/o Ranchhod lodged a complaint at Police Station Barnagar, District Ujjain (MP) alleging that at 06.00 p.m. when he was near pond in Gendawadi and measuring land of his friend Manoj Kali, at that time, accused persons came there, interrupted the complainant by abusing him. Later, accused Anil gave a knife blow to Deepak due to which he received injury on his right hand. When Manoj Kali came to save him, accused Ashok Sharma inflicted injury to him by Sabbal, due to which he sustained injuries on foot and knee of his right leg. They also threatened the complaint to kill. Co-accused Arvind and Saroj were present on the spot and they scuffled with the complainant. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR bearing Crime No.111/2013 was registered at Police Station Barnagar, District Ujjain (MP) against the accused persons for commission of offence under sections 294, 324, 323/34 and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain (MP), who committed it to the Court of Special Judge [under SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act], Ujjain. 3. The trial Court, after framing of the charges and recording evidence, acquitted the present appellants for commission of offence under sections 294, 324 and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Co-accused persons Arvind and Saroj were also acquitted of all the charges; however, the present appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them, as mentioned above. Co-accused persons Arvind and Saroj were also acquitted of all the charges; however, the present appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them, as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellants have filed the present appeal before this Court. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that he is not challenging the order of conviction of the appellants passed by the trial Court, however, he submits that appellant No.2 Ashok s/o Krishna Vallabh Sharma is an old man aged about 60 years whereas appellant No.1 Anil s/o Krishna Vallabh Sharma is 38 years of age. They are not having any criminal record. The incident has taken place all of a sudden and there was no premeditation. They have been convicted for offence under section 323 of IPC. The allegation against the appellants is that they inflicted simple injury to injured persons Deepak s/o Ranchchod and Manoj Jain. During the pendency of the case, both the parties have also settled their dispute, which is reflected in cross examination of injured Deepak (PW1). The said conviction will adversely affect their future career. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellants prays that the appellants should have been given the benefit of provisions of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State of Madhya Pradesh opposes the prayer; and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that commission of alleged offence by the appellants is established on the basis of the statement of complainant injured Deepak (PW1), Ramesh Mali (PW2), Manoj (PW4) and Dr. Jitendra Sharma (PW3) corroborated with the FIR Ex.P-1 and MLC Ex.P-5. Hence, on the basis of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant for commission of offence under section 323 of IPC. 7. As regards sentence awarded to the appellants is concerned, from the perusal of the record, it is evident that the appellants are the first offenders and no previous conviction has been proved against them. 7. As regards sentence awarded to the appellants is concerned, from the perusal of the record, it is evident that the appellants are the first offenders and no previous conviction has been proved against them. They have faced the trial for about six years and they have caused simple injury to injured persons and the sentence awarded to the appellants will adversely affect their future. In these circumstances, it is expedient that the appellants should be released on probation of good behavior. 8. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No. 6025/2019 is allowed in part. The order of conviction passed by the trial Court for commission of offence under section 323 of IPC against the appellants is affirmed. However, the jail sentence awarded to the appellants is hereby quashed; and it is directed that they shall be released on probation of maintaining good behavior on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with an undertaking that they shall keep peace and good behavior for a period of two years. They are also directed to appear before the trial Court on 17th February, 2020 for furnishing bail bond, as directed above. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary compliance. ...................