IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)

nd ON THE 2 OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 885 of 2013 Between:-

PARASRAM S/O MANGILAL BAVARI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILL.MURLI P.S.MALHARGARH, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (SHRI RITURAJ R.BHATNAGAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT.

THRU.P.S.MALHARGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI BHASKAR AGRAWAL, LEARNED GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT)

This appeal coming on for orders this day, JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA passed the following:

JUDGMENT Looking to the long pendency of this criminal appeal instead of hearing the application for suspension of sentence, with the consent of the parties same is heard finally.

This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.03.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No.145/2012 by 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, District Mandsaur by which the appellant herein has been convicted for an offence under Section 302, 354 and 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, 1 year R.I.

₹ ₹

and 1 year and further sentenced to pay a fine of 1,000/-, ₹

250/- and 200/- and to further undergo simple imprisonment for three- three months for want of failure to pay the fine amount.

The facts of the case in short are as under:

[2] On 29.11.2011, the complainant Sunita Bai and Jeevan S/o Punaji Meena (Jeeja) were going from Neemch to Malhargarh by bicycle. They stayed at the Tea shop of Parasram (hereinafter referred to as '' appellant'') situated at Village Murli. The appellant had offered to stay for the night in his house. The appellant and Jeevan consumed the liquor. During the night, the appellant under intoxication condition with bad intention tried to pull the Sari of the complainant. When Jeevan objected to this , the appellant gave a blow by means of a wooden stick (Haliya) on his head due to which he fell down, thereafter appellant gave a repeated blows to him. The complainant tried to save Jeevan, she was also beaten by the appellant. She ran away from the house and walked towards Neemuch. She narrated the entire story to her father, Jeeja Kalu and Thekedar Balu. They all came to the village Murli and lodged a report in Police Station . Injured was taken to the hospital where he was scummed to injuries. Postmortem was conducted and the dead body was handed over to a relative for cremation. SHO of Police Station registered an FIR at Crime No.218/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 307, 354 and 323 of I.P.C. and after the death of the Jeevan an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. was added. This appellant was arrested and sent to jail.

[3] Upon completion of the investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal court who committed the trial to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with the law.

[4] The trial Court framed charges under Sections 354, 323 and 302 of IPC against the appellant and proceeded on trial after his abjuring the guilt. The accused / appellant abjured guilt and entered into the trial.

[5] The prosecution in order to bring home the offences examined as many as 11 witnesses and brought on record various documents to prove its case. Statement of the accused / appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication, however, he has not produced any witnesses or exhibited any document in his defence.

[6] Although learned counsel for the appellant well tried to convince us that the appellant has falsely been implicated solely on the oral testimony of Sunita Bai (PW-3) but in alternate he submitted that even if the entire story is to be believed as true, the offence will not travel more than 304- Part I or section 325 of I.P.C. The a