Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajeshwari Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 2 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
h
ON THE 25 OF JANUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2871 OF 2000
BETWEEN:-
1. RAJESHWRI SINGH S/O HARIBHAGAT
SINGH CHANDEL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
OCCUPATION : SAMITI SEWAK, DISTRICT,
CO.OP.BANK SIDHI, P.S. BEHRI, VILLAGE
KARONDI, TEHSIL SEHAVAI, DISTRICT
SIDHI.
2. RAKESH PRATAP SINGH S/O GAJRAJ
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, VILLAGE
DUARAKHURD P.S. BEHRI DIST. SIGHI.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. JAMIDAR SINGH S/O HARIHAR SINGH
CHANDEL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
VILLAGE DAURAKHURD DIST. SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PAPPU ALIAS ASUTOSH SINGH S/O
KANHAIYALAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 27
YEARS, VILLAGE DAURAKHURD P.S.
BEHRI, DIST. SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI SANJAY PATEL - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE
STATION BEHARI, DISTRICT SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 2/1/2024
12:47:17 PM
2
.....RESPONDENT
( BY SMT. EKTA GUPTA - PANEL LAWYER
FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE)
_______________________________________________________________
This appeal coming on for order this day, the court passed the following:
JUDGEMENT
Appellants have preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging judgment dated 29.11.2000 passed by IInd Additional and Sessions Judge, Sidhi in S.T.No.14/1998 convicting and sentencing the appellants as under:-
NAME OF SECTIONS AND IMPRISONMENT FINE APPELLANTS ACT Rajeshwari 325 of IPC R.I. For one year Rs.200/-
323 of IPC S.I. for three months Rs.100/-
147 of IPC S.I. for one month ------
Jamidar Singh 323 of IPC S.I. for three months and in Rs.100/-
147 of IPC default of fine R.I. for two
months
S.I. for one month ------
Rakesh Pratap 147 of IPC S.I. for one month -----
Singh @ Munna,
Brijraj Singh
and Pappu @
Asutosh Singh
2. 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 appellants has also submitted that in CRA No.2912/2000, pertaining to cross case, parties Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI MEHRA Signing time: 2/1/2024 12:47:17 PM 3 have compromised the matter. It is also urged that as appellant No.1 Rajeshwari is in Government Job, therefore, either he may be released on probation or it may be mentioned in the order that they order shall not effect his service career.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record of the case.
4. 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 appellants under Sections 325, 323 and 147 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, the findings of trial Court with respect to conviction of appellants are affirmed.
5. So far as sentence is concerned, a perusal of impugned judgment reveals that learned trial Court has sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para 1 of judgment.
6. Perusal of case file clearly reveals that it is a case of free fight and there was no premeditation. There are no criminal antecedents of the appellants.
Appellant No.1 Rajeswari is in Government Job. There was also a cross case Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI MEHRA Signing time: 2/1/2024 12:47:17 PM 4 and appeal filed in relation to cross case has been compromised. The present case relates to incident dated 10.12.1997.
7. Hence, in view of above and taking into consideration over all facts and circumstances of the case and ends of justice would be served if sentence of imprisonment is set aside and appellants are sentenced with enhanced fine only.
8. In view of above, appeal filed by appellants are partly allowed and sentence of imprisonment is set aside and appellants are sentenced as under:
NAME OF SECTIONS FINE Imprisonment in
APPELLA AND ACT lieu of fine
NTS amount
Rajeshwari 325 of IPC Rs.200/- 6 month R.I.
323 of IPC Rs.100/- 1 month R.I.
147 of IPC Rs.200/-
Jamidar 323 of IPC Rs.100/- 1 month S.I.
Singh 147 of IPC Rs.200/-
Rakesh 147 of IPC Rs.200/- 15 days S.I.
Pratap (each) (each)
Singh @
Munna,
Brijraj
Singh and
Pappu @
Asutosh
Singh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 2/1/2024
12:47:17 PM
5
9. In view of above, Further considering the facts as mentioned in preceding paras and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that appellant No.1 Rajeshwari 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. (10) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that the conviction of the appellant Rajeshwari will not affect his service career. Meanwhile, the appellants are directed to maintain good behaviour. (11) The appellants are 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.
(12) With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated herein above.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL JUDGE sm Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI MEHRA Signing time: 2/1/2024 12:47:17 PM