SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 10071

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4177 of 2023

BETWEEN:-

1.

RAJU @ GOVIND S/O KISHAN KOLI,

AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,

OCCUPATION: BUSINESS

R/O. HOUSE NO.107, LAXMANPURA,

RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.

BUTY @ HUKUMCHAND

S/O PRABHUDAYAL,

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

OCCUPATION: LABOR

R/O. GALI NO. 2 PNT COLONY RATLAM

(MADHYA PRADESH)

3.

MONTY @ RAVINDRA S/O MITHLESH KALAL,

AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,

OCCUPATION: UEMPLOYED

R/O. HOUSE NO. 306, JAWAHAR NAGAR DIST.:

RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT

(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

AND

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

STATION HOUSE OFFICER

THRU.P.S.INDUSTRIAL AREA,

DIST.: RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(SHRI RAJESH JOSHI - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

Reserved on :29.08.2023

Delivered on :11.09.2023

This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the

following:

Advocates:
Sanjay Kumar Sharma,Advocate General

1

Signed by: SUMATHI

Signing time: 11-09-

2023 17:11:39

Signature Not Verified

This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 of Cr.P.C. by the

appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.03.2023 passed by 2nd

Additional Session Judge, Ratlam, District Ratlam in S.T. No.2400095/2014

whereby the appellants/accused persons have been convicted for the offence

punishable under Sections 324/34, 325/34, 326/34 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced

for 02 years, 3 years and 5 years R.I. with fine of Rs.2000/-, Rs.3000/-,

Rs.5000/- and usual default stipulations.

2. Prosecution story in nut shell are that on 26.02.2014 complainant, a

driver, filed a report that he was returning back after dropping his child in

school and when he reached Godra bridge, then accused persons namely Raju

Kholi armed with sword, Vikas Harijan armed with iron rod, Monti armed with

sword and Bunty armed with baseball stick stopped the complainant and started

hurling abuses on account of previous enmity. On being prevented by the

complainant, they sprinkled chilli powder in his eyes and started assaulting him.

Appellant Raju and Monti assaulted complainant on his left leg below his knee

and on right hand wrist. Accused Bunty assaulted the complainant below his

right leg knee with baseball stick and accused Vikas assaulted with iron rod on

his feet due to which complainant sustained injury and started bleeding.

Complainant cried for rescue. On hearing his appeal, Nandibai, Mukesh and

Amarsingh along with other persons came on to rescue him. Accused persons

fled away from the spot. Further allegation is that the accused persons

threatened to kill the complainant. Complainant was taken to hospital for

treatment.

3. On the basis of dehati nalisi of the injured/complainant offence under

Sections 341, 294, 323, 326, 506, 34 of IPC was registered at Crime No.125/14

against the accused persons. During the course of investigation, spot map was

2

Signed by: SUMATHI

Signing time: 11-09-

2023 17:11:39

Signature Not Verified

prepared and weapons used in the incident were seized and seizure memo was

prepared. Further after recording the statement of the witnesses and arrest of

the accused persons, charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Ratlam, in turn the matter was committed to the Sessions Court which

was finally heard and adjudicated by Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam,

District Ratlam.

5. The appellants/accused persons were tried and charged under Sections

326 in alternate 326/34, 325 in alternate 325/34, 324 in alternate 324/34, 323 in

alternate 323/34, 294 and 506 of IPC. Thereafter the plea of the

appellants/accused persons has been recorded in which they abjured their guilt

and took a plea that they are innocent.

6 . T he prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses namely

Nandibai (PW-1), Amarsingh (PW-2), Injured/complainant-Praveen Solanki

(PW-3), Dr. Shailendra Mathur (PW-4), Jitendra Raikwar (PW-5), Mukesh

(P.W.6), Dr. R. K. Tiwari (P.W.7), A.B. Khaka (P.W.8), R.L. Meena (P.W9).

No witness has been examined in support of the defence by the appellants.

7. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence and material

available on record has convicted the appellants/accused persons under

Sections 324/34, 325/34, 326/34 of IPC, 1860. Hence being aggrieved of the

impugned order, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

08. The appellants have preferred the present appeal mainly on the

ground that judgment and order of the trial Court is contrary to law and facts

available on record. The learned trial Court committed error in not considering

the material contradictions and omissions appeared in the statements of

prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently

3

Signed by: SUMATHI

Signing time: 11-09-

2023 17:11:39

Signature Not Verified

contended that as per the statement of Dr. Shailendra Mathur (P.W.4) only

injury No.7 (injured sustained fracture on his right and left legs) can be treated

as grievous injury as this injury was caused by hard

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top