IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

th

ON THE 6 OF JANUARY, 2026

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2571 of 2012

MITHTHU @ MITHAI LAL

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Appearance:

Smt. Rashmi Mishra - Advocate for the appellant. Shri Rajiv Pandey - Panel Lawyer for respondent.

JUDGMENT competent court, which on its turn committed the case to the court of session where the accused/appellant was tried.

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 Sessions Judge, Damoh in ST No. 242/2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 03 years RI with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to further undergo 6

months RI.

2. As per prosecution story, on 04.07.2011 at around 11 a.m., the accused/ appellant is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 323, 324, 294 and 506 of the IPC by assaulting the victim with axe and abusing him by using filthy language. Based on the above report, a case was registered bearing Crime No.46/2011 at the Police Station Raneh District Damoh. Medical examination and X-ray report was conducted. During the investigation, a spot map was prepared

and statements of witnesses were recorded.

3. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in the

4. Learned Sessions Judge framed charges for commission of offence under Sections 323, 324, 326, 506 part-II of IPC. Applicant claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 8 witnesses viz. Mahesh (P.W.1), Suresh (P.W.-2), Kishori (P.W.-3), Dr. Sourabh Jain (P.W.-4), Munnilal (P.W.-5), Man Singh (P.W.-6), T. S. Dabar (P.W.-7), Devkinandan Dubey (P.W.-

8) . No witness was examined in defence. Prosecution adduced and exhibited documents as Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/12.

6. 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 and 307 of IPC as the aforesaid offences were not found proved. Learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused for commission of offence as shown herein-above in paragraph 1.

7. 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 01 year 04 months and 01 day 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 while enhancing the fine amount suitably.

8. 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.

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

10. On appreciation of the evidence on record, I find no infirmity and no illegality in findings of conviction recorded by the Trial Court.

11. However, looking to the facts that the incident is of the year 2011 since then the appellant is facing mental agony, the appellant remained in custody for a period of 01 year 04 months and 01 day. Appellant was of 40 years of age at the time of incident and now he is 56 years old. The prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellant on record and he did not misuse the liberty granted