IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 15043 of 2023 JITENDRA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

SHRI JITENDRA BAJPAI, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT SHRI GAURAV RAWAT, GA FOR THE STATE RESERVED ON:10.07.2024 DELIVERED ON: 12.07.2024

JUDGMENT

The present appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment conviction and sentence dated 22.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarana District Ujjain in Special Case No.100005/2017, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Section 324/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs.10000/-

with default stipulations.

2. As per the prosecution story, the complainant Ramprasad has lodged a dehati nalishi under section 323, 294, 506/34 of IPC by submitting that on 01.11.2016 at about 10:00PM, when he was going to his house from his shop, on the way, one Mayaram has met with an accident through his cycle with the complainant. When the complainant advised him, he abused the complainant in filthy language. Later on, when the complainant had reached to his house and advised him, he assaulted on the complainant with a stick (lohdi stick) on his head. Son of Mayaram (the appellant) has also assaulted him with kicks and fists. After due investigation, the police has registered the FIR against the appellant. Signature Not Verified

3. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tarana, Ujjain.

4. In turn, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter, appellant was charged for offence under Sections 323, 294, 506/34 of IPC. He abjured his guilt and took a plea that he had been falsely implicated in the present crime and prayed for trial.

5. In support of the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses namely Ramprasad (PW-1), Sanjay (PW-2), Ishwar (PW-3), Ajay (PW-4), Dr. Sandeep Suryawanshi (PW-5), Gaurishankar (PW-6), Dr. Rupesh Khatri (PW-7), Dr. Atul Sharma (PW-8). In defense, no witnesses has been adduced by the appellant.

6. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence and argument adduced by the parties, pronounced the impugned judgment on and finally concluded the case and convicted the appellant for commission of the said offence under the provisions of Section 324/34 of I.P.C.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant wrongly without considering the evidence available on record. Counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant has not committed any offence because the allegations of assault is only against father of the appellant who has already expired. It is also submitted that allegations against the appellant is only to assault with kicks and fists, there is no recovery of any weapon or stick from the appellant and the appellant has been convicted by learned trial court with the aid of Section 34 of IPC. The appellant is only 19 years of age. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses but the learned trial Court has erred in ignoring the same and in Signature Not Verified convicting the appellant. On these grounds, counsel prayed to set aside the impugned order in favour of appellant.

8. The appellant has preferred this appeal on several grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant did not press this appeal on merit and not assail the finding part of judgment. He confines his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the appellant is aged about 19 years and only undergone four days of his incarceration, his jail sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. In alternate, it is also submitted that the appellant is very poor person and not in position to deposit the amount also. It is further submitted that the appellant deserves some leniency as the appellant a