Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arjun Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18541
1 CRA-8263-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 9 th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8263 of 2019
ARJUN SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bhupendra Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Anil Upadhyay - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10769 of 2025
MOHAN SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bhupendra Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Anil Upadhyay - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Heard on I.A. No.26344 of 2025, an application for condonation of delay filed in Cr.A. No.10769 of 2025.
Cr.A. No.10769 of 2025 is time barred by 2155 days.
For the reasons stated in I.A. No.26344 of 2025, the same is allowed and the delay in filing Cr.A. No.10769 of 2025 is condoned.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the appeals are heard finally.
These appeals have been filed by the appellants, namely, Arjun Singh Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 11-03-2026 18:43:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18541 2 CRA-8263-2019 and Mohan Singh under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.09.2019 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Sehore (M.P.) in Special Case No.183/2017 whereby both the appellants, namely, Arjun Singh and Mohan Singh have been convicted under Sections 325/34 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 323/34 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 18 months and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and R.I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- respectively with default stipulations.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 01.10.2017, at about 11:30 a.m., while going to his house, the complainant Parasram (PW-1) saw his elder brother Devkaran (PW-4) being beaten by accused persons Arjun Singh and Mohan Singh, and the accused Gajraj Singh and Bhanwar Lal vandalizing the motorcycle parked there with sticks and rods. On this, the complainant Parasram ran and asked as to why they are beating Devkaran, to which the accused hurling abuses told him why didn't you people come to harvest the soybeans? Parasram said that no one had asked him to harvest the soybeans, so accused Arjun Singh said that they had talked to Parasram's nephew Rakesh about bringing laborers. Complainant Parasram said that Rakesh hadn't told them and had refused to abuse them, so accused Mohan Singh and Arjun Singh beat Parasram with a stick and a rod. He suffered injuries to his left hand and knees. Upon Parasram's screams, his wife Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 11-03-2026 18:43:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18541 3 CRA-8263-2019 Laxmibai (PW-3) and sister-in-law Durgabai (PW-2) arrived. The accused threatened to kill Parasram. Complainant Parasram called dial 100 and called for a vehicle, and he and Devkaran went to Sehore District Hospital for treatment.
3. At the District Hospital, Sehore, Dr. B.K. Chaturvedi (PW-7) conducted a medical examination of Parasram and Devkaran and issued pre- MLC reports vide Exhibits P-11 and 13, respectively. An X-ray of Parasram revealed a fracture of the radius bone in his left arm. The District Hospital, Sehore, informed the Mandi Police Station about the injured persons. Assistant Sub-Inspector R.N. Sharma (PW-8) arrived at the District Hospital, where the complainant, Parasram (PW-1) got recorded Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-
1. Based on Ex.P-1, R.N. Sharma (PW-8) filed a criminal report, Ex.P-18, at the Mandi Police Station, registering Crime No. 313/17.
4. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The accused persons denied the crime and sought a trial. In their examinations, the accused persons stated their innocence and that they were falsely implicated due to political rivalry. The accused presented no defence evidence.
5. The learned trial Judge on going through the evidence available in the charge sheet framed charges against appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 325 in the alternative 325/34, 323 in the alternative 323/34, 506 part-II of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, which they denied and claimed for the trial.
6. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 11-03-2026 18:43:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18541 4 CRA-8263-2019 many as 09 witnesses, namely, Parashram @ Parshuram (PW-1), Durga Bai (PW-2), Laxmibai (PW-3), Devkaran (PW-4), Rakesh Singh Verma (PW-5), Shivram Dandotiya (PW-6), Dr. B.K.Chaturvedi (PW-7), R.S.Sharma (PW-
8), Maansingh Tomar (PW-9) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/16 and Ex.D/1 to D/3 the documents on record.
7. The learned trial Judge after appreciating and marshalling the evidence has acquitted the accused persons of the offence under Sections 294, 506 Part-2 of IPC and section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The learned Trial Court has convicted the accused/appellants under Sections 325/34 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 323/34 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 18 months and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and R.I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- respectively with default stipulations In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by appellants.
8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the present appellants that the present appellant - Mohan Singh has suffered custody of around 04 months as on today and other accused/appellant - Arjun Singh has suffered custody of around 16 days. It is also submitted that he is not pressing the appeal on merits and pressing it only on the point of sentence. It is also submitted on the point of sentence that the incident is of the year 2017. At that time, appellant - Mohan Singh was 21 years of age and appellant -Arjun Singh was 32 years of age. They also suffered the agony of trial since 2017 and their conduct was cooperative with the Court during trial and before this Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 11-03-2026 18:43:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18541 5 CRA-8263-2019 Court. They are the first offenders as per para 28 of the impugned judgment. There is no minimum sentence prescribed under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. Therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them, though on the point of fine, the Court may pass any justified order.
9. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment but he has no objection on deciding the appeal on the point of sentence.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it is found that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly convicted the appellants under Sections 325/34 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 323/34 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. Therefore, findings of conviction for the aforesaid offences are upheld.
12. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case; evidence on record; taking into account the age of accused/ appellants Mohan Singh and Arjun Singh, who were 21 and 32 years of age respectively at the time of commission of offence; accused/ appellants Mohan Singh and Arjun Singh have suffered 04 months and 16 days respectively as on today; as per para 28 of the impugned judgment accused/appellants are the first offenders; they have been facing agony of trial since 2017 and appellant Arjun Singh was on bail during the trial and the pendency of this appeal but he never misused the liberty so granted, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would meet if while reducing the Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 11-03-2026 18:43:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18541 6 CRA-8263-2019 jail sentence of appellants to the period already undergone by them, the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.2000/- to Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section 325/34 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and fine amount of Rs.1000/- is maintained for the offence under Section 323/34 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act .
13. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of appellants -
Mohan Singh and Arjun Singh under Sections 325/34 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 323/34 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, jail sentences of appellants - Mohan Singh and Arjun Singh are reduced to the period already undergone by them and fine amount is eenhanced from Rs.2000/- to Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section 325/34 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and fine amount of Rs.1000/- is maintained for the offence under Section 323/34 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act , which shall be deposited by them within a period of 60 days from today. The fine amount, if any already deposited by the appellants be adjusted against the aforesaid amount of fine. The entire amount of fine be paid to the complainant/injured persons as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
14. The appellant Arjun Singh is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. The appellant Mohan Singh is in jail, he be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Court is not deposited within a period of 60 days from today, they would surrender themselves to serve the entire jail Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 11-03-2026 18:43:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18541 7 CRA-8263-2019 sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.
15. The order of the Trial Court pertaining to disposal of the property is hereby affirmed.
16. Let record of the Trial Court along with copy of this order be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
17. With the aforesaid, both the appeals stand disposed of.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE DV Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 11-03-2026 18:43:43