Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pappu @ Jagdish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3730
1 CRA-2337-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 14 th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2337 of 2011
PAPPU @ JAGDISH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. Rakesh Sharma - Advocate for appellant - Absent.
Ms. Vineeta Sharma - Deputy Government Advocate for State.
JUDGMENT
As none has appeared on behalf of the appellant, Shri Mukund Kumar Chourasiya, Advocate is appointed as amicus curiae to assist this Court.
2. This appeal has been filed by the present appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.09.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, East Nimad, Khandwa (M.P.) in Session Trial No.91 of 2011 whereby the present appellant has been convicted under Section 335 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo six months RI and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Smt. Pinkibai lodged an FIR alleging that on 27.04.2011 at about 01:00 to 02:00 PM, her father had come to take her along with him and she herself was willing to go with her father. Upon this, the appellant/accused, who is her husband, became enraged and assaulted her with a sharp-edged weapon (Darati), causing her serious injuries. During the incident, neighbour Raju and other persons intervened to stop the assault. It is Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 16-01-2026 17:38:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3730 2 CRA-2337-2011 further alleged that the appellant/accused threatened her, stating that if she insisted on going with her father or disclosed the incident, he would kill the complainant. On the basis of the said report, the police registered Crime No. 67 of 2011 against the appellant/accused for offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 324, 326, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code on 27.04.2011 and initiated investigation.
4. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the competent Court, which, on its turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions and from where it was received by the trial Court for trial.
5. The learned trial Judge on going through the evidence available in the charge-sheet framed charges against appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 506 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code, which he denied and claimed for the trial.
6. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 07 witnesses, namely Pinkibai (PW-1), Jitendra (PW-2), Kundanbai (PW-3), Dr. Azad Jain (PW-4), Head Constable No. 175 Naresh Pyase (PW-5), Head Constable No.154 Madansingh Chouhan (PW-6) and Dr. Shanta Tirki (PW-7) and placed the documents Ex.P-1 to P-10. In defence, the appellant did not choose to examine any witness.
7. The learned trial Judge after appreciating and marshalling the evidence vide impugned judgment has convicted the appellant for the commission of offence punishable under Section 335 of the Indian Penal Code and passed the order of sentence as mentioned above. In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
8. Shri Mukund Kumar Chourasiya, learned counsel appearing as amicus curiae submits that the incident in question is of the year 2011. The present appellant was about 24 years of age at the time of the offence and has been facing Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 16-01-2026 17:38:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3730 3 CRA-2337-2011 the ordeal of trial for a long period. He has been convicted under Section 335 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. As per the certificate issued under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant remained in custody for five days during the course of trial. Having regard to the tender age of the appellant at the time of the incident, the absence of any criminal antecedents, the prolonged pendency of the proceedings since 2011 spanning about 15 years and his cooperative conduct during trial, it is prayed that the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone, with a suitable enhancement of the fine amount.
9. Learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment; however, he raises no objection to the appeal being decided on the question of sentence.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the present appellant under Section 335 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 335 of the IPC calls for no interference.
12. As regards sentence, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the age of the appellant being 24 years at the time of the incident in the year 2011, his cooperative conduct during trial, the fact that he is a first- time offender and the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the substantive jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, while suitably enhancing the fine amount. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of the appellant under Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 16-01-2026 17:38:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3730 4 CRA-2337-2011 Section 335 of the IPC, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the fine is enhanced from Rs.2000/- to Rs.8,000/-. The enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of two months from today, failing which he shall undergo the sentence as originally awarded by the learned trial Court. Any fine amount already deposited shall be adjusted towards the enhanced fine. The entire amount of fine so deposited shall be paid to the complainant Pinkibai (PW-1) as compensation under Section 395 of the BNSS, 2023.
13. The present appellant is on bail, his bail bond shall stand discharged.
14. The order of the trial Court pertaining to disposal of the property is hereby affirmed.
15. Let record of the trial Court along with a copy of this order be sent back to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
16. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE THK Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 16-01-2026 17:38:56