IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH th ON THE 18 OF MARCH, 2024 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 565 of 2008 BETWEEN:-

1. VINOD YADAV S/O RAMMANOHAR YADAV, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS GURUKUL COLONY, RAU, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. PAWAN KUMAR S/O BADALDAS YADAV, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETD. GURUKUL COLONY, RAU, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. BHARAT S/O BADALDAS YADAV, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETD. GURUKUL COLONY, RAU, INDORE (DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 07-1-14)

4. SANTOSH S/O BHARAT YADAV, AGED ABOUT 32 YEAR S , OCCUPATION: SERVICE GURUKUL COLONY, RAU, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANTS (NONE FORT HE APPELLANTS)

AND STATE OF M.P. THROUGH PS. RAJENDRA NAGAR, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT ( BY SHRI MAYANK MISHRA - PANEL LAWYER)

This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.04.2008 passed by the Signature Not Verified learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in S.T.No.466/2005. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court has convicted the appellants/accused for the offence under Sections 324, 324/34, 323/34, 325/34 of IPC and Section 25(1) (B)(B) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I., 6 months R.I., 3 months R.I., 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- each (on each count) with default stipulations.

2. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellants filed this appeal on the ground that the trial Court failed to see that there is no evidence on record to prove that accused were guilty. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. The Investigating Officer was unable to prove that seized talwar was sealed on his part and put in proper way in Malkhana. The prosecution witnesses turned hostile and did not support the Investigating Officer. On these grounds, prays for setting aside the impugned judgment and acquittal of the appellants.

3. The trial Court framed charges against the appellants, which were denied by the appellants. The trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the arguments found the appellants guilty for offence under the aforesaid Sections and convicted them as aforesaid.

4. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. Now question arises whether the appeal of the appellants is admissible or not?

7. So far as conviction for offence under Sections 324, 324/34, 323/34, 325/34 of the IPC is concerned, I have gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution and examined it minutely. From perusal of overall evidence on Signature Not Verified record, it is clearly established that learned trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellants under Sections 324, 324/34, 323/34, 325/34 of the IPC. Hence, findings recorded by the trial Court with respect to conviction are affirmed.

5. So far as sentence is concerned, according to the charge sheet, the incident had taken place on 24.05.2005. Appellants Vinod and Pawan remained in custody from 19.07.2005 to 30.07.2005 and appellant-Santosh remained in custody from 08.08.2005 to 10.08.2005. Accused were 28, 65 and 32 years of age at the time of incident and now they are near about 47, 84 and 51 years old. Hence, while modifying the sentence of imprisonment, appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them with fine as imposed by the trial Court.

The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 6 . So far as offence under Section 25(1)(B)(B) of Arms Act is concerned, from perusal of the record, it is found that the Investigating Officer stated in examination in chief that he seized the talwar from the appellants, but he did not stated that he sealed the talwar on the spot. It is true that evidence of the police officer canno