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

nd

ON THE 22 OF JANUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6815 of 2025 SWAPNIL YADAV Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri J.K. Chourasiya - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Anil Upadhyay - Panel Laawyer for the respondent/State.

Shri Subodh Tamrakar - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

JUDGMENT 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, Sagar in S.T. No.487/2024 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 03 years RI with fine of Rs.3000/- and in default, to further undergo 3 months RI.

2. In brief the case of prosecution is that on 25.05.2022, the complainant Motilal Prajapati lodged a report at the Motinagar Police Station, Sagar, stating that on 25.05.2022, at around 10:00 pm, he was on his way to home. On the way, in front of Pradeep Sen's house, he encountered the accused, Swapnil Yadav, who, owing to an old grudge, began abusing him with filthy language. When he objected, Swapnil, holding something like a rod struck him on his left leg, injuring his toe. The accused then struck him again, causing injuries in his right knee and finger. When he screamed, his sons, Sandeep Prajapati and Satish Prajapati, came to his rescue. The accused, Swapnil also threatened to kill him if he went to report the incident. On the basis of above report, a First Information Report (Ex. P/2) was registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, Sagar and investigation was started by registering a case against the accused under Sections 294, 323, 506 of the IPC at Crime No. 505/2022 and the injured was medically examined and X-ray examination was conducted. During the investigation, the police prepared a scene map (Ex.P/5). An iron rod used in the incident was seized from the accused and a seizure memo (Ex.P/1) was prepared. Police statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. The X-ray report of the victim revealed a fracture in the fifth metatarsal bone of his right foot, leading to the addition of Section 326 of IPC. The accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P/7.

3. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar, which on its turn committed the case to the court of session where the accused/appellant was tried.

4. Learned Sessions Judge framed charges for commission of offence punishable under Sections 294, 326 and 506 part-II of IPC. Appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused in his defence stated that two days prior to filing of this case, the complainant Motilal had been injured in the leg by his vehicle, for which he had received treatment. However, two days later, Motilal began demanding money. When he refused, the complainant filed a false report. He did not assault the complainant, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The accused has not adduced any evidence in his defence.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses, namely, Vijay Kurmi (P.W.1), Ajay Singh Jat (P.W.-2), Motilal Prajapati (P.W.-3), Sandeep Kumar Prajapati (P.W.-4), Satish Prajapati (P.W.-5), S.I. Kamal Singh Thakur (P.W.-6), Dr. Ashish Jain (P.W.-7)\ and ASI Sohan Singh Maravi (P.W.-8) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/8 the documents on record. 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 and 506 part-II of IPC. Learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant for commission of offence as shown herein-above in paragraph 1.

7. During pendency of this appea