Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mahesh Lal vs The State Of M.P. on 25 January, 2024

Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal

Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal

                                                            1
                          IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
                                              ON THE 25 th OF JANUARY, 2024
                                           CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1507 of 2005

                         BETWEEN:-
                         MAHESH LAL, SON OF BARIK RAM, AGED ABOUT 42
                         YEARS, R/O KALI MATI, P.S. JUNNARDEV, DISTRICT
                         CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPELLANT
                         ( BY SHRI SARVESH KUMAR JAISWAL - APPELLANT )

                         AND
                         THE STATE OF M.P. , THROUGH P.S. JUNNARDEV,
                         DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI A.S.BAGHEL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

                               T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                         following:
                                                             ORDER

With the consent of counsel for the parties, matter is finally heard.

(2) Appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging judgment dated 14.07.2005 passed by third Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in S.T.No.177/2005 convicting appellant under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.250/-(four counts), with respect to each injured.

(3) Learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset, has submitted that he is not challenging the impugned judgment on merits but is confining his arguments with respect to sentence only. Learned counsel for the appellant after Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI MEHRA Signing time: 2/1/2024 12:08:40 PM 2 relying upon this Court judgment in Jaideep Singh Bhadoria Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in CRR No.3565/2017 order dated 16.01.2018, submits that there are no criminal antecedents of the appellant and he is in Government Job, it is a case of sudden quarrel and incident occurred only when appellant tried to intervene in between its dispute. Therefore, sentence of imprisonment be set aside and at the most appellant will be sentenced with fine only.

(4) Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that in view of nature of incident, if sentence of imprisonment is set aside then fine imposed by the trial court be enhanced.

(5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case.

(6) So far as the conviction is concerned, I have gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution and examined it minutely. A perusal of the evidence on record reveal that findings recorded by the trial Court with respect to conviction of appellant under Section 323 of IPC are well founded and no interference is called for in the findings recorded by the trial Court with respect to conviction of appellants, as mentioned above. Hence, findings of trial Court with respect to conviction of appellants are affirmed.

(7) So far as sentence is concerned, perusal of case file reveals that appellant is in government job. There are no criminal antecedents of appellant. Incident is dated 10.06.2003. Appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 323 of IPC. It is also apparent from the record of the case that incident has occurred all of a sudden when appellant tried to intervene in between the quarrel that way going on between Hira Deharia and Rachna.

(8). In view of above and taking into consideration over all facts and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI MEHRA Signing time: 2/1/2024 12:08:40 PM 3 circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be served if sentence of imprisonment is set aside and appellant is sentenced with enhanced fine only.

(9) In view of above, appeal filed by appellant is partly allowed and sentence of imprisonment under Section 323 of IPC is set aside and fine amount imposed under Section 323 of IPC is enhanced to Rs.1,000/- (for each counts) total Rs.4000/- under Section 323 of IPC. After realization of fine amount each injured shall be given Rs.750/- as compensation.

(10) Further considering the facts as mentioned in preceding paras and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that appellant's conviction shall not affect his service career. In this regard the decisions in the cases of Rajbir Vs. State of Haryana, (1985) SCC(Cri) 445, Santosh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 3 MPHT 55 and Hanumant Singh Vs. State of M.P., 2016 (2) MPLJ 652 may be referred.

(11) Accordingly, the petition is allowed, it is directed that the conviction of the petitioner will not affect his service career. Meanwhile, the appellant is directed to maintain good behaviour.

(12) The appellant is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount within three months from today failing which he shall surrender before the trial Court to undergo remaining sentence of imprisonment imposed by trial Court. Fine amount, if any already deposited, shall be adjusted against the enhanced fine amount.

(13) With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated herein above.

(14) Certified copy, as per Rules.

(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE sm Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI MEHRA Signing time: 2/1/2024 12:08:40 PM