IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

th

ON THE 10 OF DECEMBER, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2783 of 2011 KALLU SAUR TRIBAL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Vineet K. Pandey - Advocate as Amicus Curiae.

Smt. Ekta Gupta - Panel Lawyer for respondent.

ORDER By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, in ST No. 542/2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year RI with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to further undergo 3 months RI.

2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant as amicus curiae.

3. As per prosecution story, on 17th May 2011 at around 8 a.m., the accused/ appellant is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 294, 326 and 506 Part II of the IPC for using obscene language, causing hurt to the complainant Jeevanlal with an axe and intimidated him with death threats. Based on the above report, a case was registered at the Police Station Banda District Sagar as Crime/FIR (Ex.P/2). During the investigation, a spot map (Ex.P/3) was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded.

4. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in the competent court, which on its turn committed the case to the court of session where the accused/appellant was tried.

5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges for commission of offence under Sections 326, 294, 506 part-II of IPC. Applicant claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 8 witnesses viz. Dr.

Diwaker (P.W.1), complainant Jeevanlal (P.W.-2), Shyamrani (P.W.-3), Shankar Sour (P.W.-4), Dr. Awadh Bihari (P.W.-5), V. K. Ahirwar (P.W.-6), Kuldeep (P.W.-7), Pyarelal (P.W.-8) . No witness was examined in defence. Prosecution adduced and exhibited documents as Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-

P/11.

7. Learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, found the prosecution case proved in respect of commission of offence under Section 326 of IPC, but has acquitted the accused/appellant in respect of commission of offence under Sections 294, 506 part-II of IPC in view of the compromise entered into between the parties. Learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused for commission of offence as shown herein-above in paragraph 1.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the appellant recorded under Section 326 of IPC by the Trial Court, but has prayed for reduction of jail sentence. It is submitted that the incident had taken place in the year 2011 i.e. almost 14 years ago. He has already served out approximately 11 days incarceration so far as per Certificate under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is prayed that appellant’s jail sentence may be reduced/modified to the extent of period already undergone by him as no fruitful purpose would get served by sending him behind the bars again.

9. Learned counsel for the State has supported the findings recorded by the Trial Court and has submitted that after appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Trial Court has rightly found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence and has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Court is at liberty to consider the matter on the point of sentence.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused impugned judgment and record of Trial Court.

11. On appreciation of the evidence on record, I find no infirmity and no illegality in findings of conviction recorded by the Trial Court. Therefore, findings of appellant’s conviction for the alleged offence under Section under Section 326 of IPC are upheld.

12. However, looking to the facts