1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH: INDORE (SINGLE BENCH: HON.MR.JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.959/1996 Ghisu Singh S/o Parvat Singh & four others ... Appellants Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ... Respondent For appellants: None appears. For respondent: Shri C.S.Ujjainia, learned Panel Lawyer. State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for Reporting:- J U D G M E N T (Delivered on 18th October, 2011) The present appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C has been filed against the judgment dated 14th November, 1996 passed by the Court of Special Judge, District Shajapur in Special Criminal Case No.114/1995, acquitting the appellants for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 341/34 of the IPC, but convicting them for offence under Section 325/34 of the IPC and sentencing them for one month RI with fine of Rs.250/-, and default stipulation. 2 [2] The prosecution story is that complainant Ganpat, on 14/5/1995 at 11.00 PM was approached by the accused Amarsingh and Badri, who told him that their brother had called him. Ganpat accompanied them to the village and when they reached near the agricultural field, Bhagwan and Ghisusingh, the other two accused were sitting there. When Ganpat tried to escape from there he was not allowed. These accused persons put the grass in their agricultural field on fire and started shouting and beating Ganpat and took him towards the village. Other villagers also gathered and started beating him, his face was blackened and a procession was taken out in the village. Ganpat became unconscious and the next day he had lodged the report at Police Station, Shajapur (Ex.P.7) on which the offence was registered and the MLC of Ganpat was done in which the injuries were found. The accused persons were arrested and the challan was filed. [3] The accused persons abjured their guilt and the trial took place and the trial Court, by the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in the manner stated above. [4] On the perusal of the impugned judgment of the trial Court as well as the record of the case, it is noticed that though PW.2 3 Gendu and PW.3 Motilal have turned hostile, but PW.1 Dr.S.Y.Jaffri as well as Ganpatlal (PW.4) have supported the prosecution case. PW.1 Dr.S.Y.Jaffri has stated about the injuries received by Ganpat. The offence against the appellants is proved on the basis of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses. [5] However, the record indicates that the appellants had also registered a cross case against the complainant on the ground that he had burnt their crops. The said fact is reflected from the statement of PW.5 Shishupal Singh and PW.6 A.J. Khan. It is also noticed that the injuries have been found to be simple in nature and that the sentence awarded is only one month and the appellants have already undergone a substantial period of the said sentence. The incident is of the year 1995 and about 16 years have lapsed thereafter. The appellants have already suffered the agony of the trial and long pendency of the appeal. The appellants are the agriculturists and nothing has been reflected to show that they have any criminal antecedents. As per the prosecution story itself, the number of villagers have participated in the alleged incident in addition to the present appellants. [7] Considering the aforesaid important aspects of the matter, 4 the sentence which is awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period which is already undergone by them. Bail and surety bond furnished by them stand discharged. [8] The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. (PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE vm