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

th

ON THE 12 OF DECEMBER, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 36 of 2012 SUKHENDRA SINGH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Anand Nayak - Advocate for the appellant.

Smt. Garima Tiwari - 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 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, District Satna, in ST No. 320/2010 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 06 months RI with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulations.

2. As per prosecution story, on 11.3.2010 at around 11 a.m., the accused/ appellant alleged to have assaulted the complainant by means of rod and abused her. Based on the above report, a case was registered at the Police Station Rampur Baghelan District Satna. 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 competent court, which on its turn committed the case to the court of session where the accused/appellant along with other co-accused were tried.

4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges for commission of offence under Sections 307 r/w 34, 323/34 294 and 506 Part II of IPC. Appellant and other co-accused persons abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 08 witnesses viz. Smt.

Shyama (P.W.1), Ramdas Singh (P.W.-2), Tarunendra Singh (P.W.-3), Krishnanand (P.W.-4), Smt. Sunita Kewat (P.W.-5), Dr. Atul Singh (P.W.- 6),Jai Singh (P.W.-7), Suryabhan Singh (P.W.-8) . Prosecution adduced and exhibited documents as Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/10. Appellants examined Virendra Singh (D.W.1) and Budhh Sen (D.W.2 in defense.

6. Learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, found the prosecution case proved in respect of commission of offence under Section 325 of IPC, but has acquitted the accused/appellants in respect of commission of offence under Sections 307/34, 294, 506 part-II and 323/34 of IPC. Learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant for commission of offence as shown herein-above in paragraph 1.

7. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the present appellant submits that he is not pressing the appeal on merits and pressing it only on the point of sentence. It is also submitted that on the point of sentence that the incident is of the year 2010. At that time, appellant was 32 years of the age. He has no criminal antecedents. He also suffered the agony of trial since 2010 and his conduct was cooperative with the Court during trial.

Therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence may be reduced to already undergone by him, though on the point of fine, the Court may pass any justified order.

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.

However, 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. Therefore, findings of appellant's conviction for the alleged offence under Section 325 of IPC is upheld.

11. However, it is revealed from the record that the incident is of the year 2010 since then the appellant is facing mental agony, the appellant remained in custody from 09.8.2010 to 11.8.2010 during trial and thereafter from 17.12.2011 to 06.1.2012. At the time of incident, appellant- Sukhendra Singh was of 32 years of age. The pros