RAJESH S/O GOPILAL, AGED 20 YEARS, OCCUPATION - LABOURER BOTH R/O INDRA NAGAR, NAGJHIRI, UJJAIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S. NEELGANGA, DISTRICT UJJAIN (MP)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment dated 25/11/2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Ujjain in S.T. No. 268/2002 convicting the accused appellant for offence under Section 323/34 of the IPC and sentencing the accused to undergo one year's R.I. each with fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default of payment of fine he was to undergo additional six months' S.I. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on the date of incident i.e. on 18.12.2001 at around 10.00 O'clock in the night, the complainant Prembai went to nearby forest to relieve herself, the accused Gopilal caught hold of her hair, hurled her on the ground and also abused her. She managed to escape from the clutches of the accused and reached home and narrated the story to her children. Immediately Anil, Prem Singh, Bhagat Singh, Lalita Bai and Leela Bai went to near by tea shop of accused Gopilal and asked him why he behaved such way and being irritated because of this, Gopilal, Santosh, Rajesh and Mukesh attacked all of them with iron rods, spades and logs. On getting information about the matter, co -accused Vijay Yadav also reached on the spot and chased them wielding a sword. Thereafter, the complainant and her children went to Neelganga Police Station and reported the matter vide Ex.P/1. On the basis of the report, crime No. 722/2011 was registered by the police. After completion of the investigation the statements of the witnesses were recorded and the accused were arrested and duly committed to their trial.

(2.) THE accused abjured their guilt and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the matter. However, on the basis of the evidence on record, the trial Court has acquitted all the accused from the offence under Section 307 of the IPC, but convicted them for offence under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced the accused as herein above indicated. Being aggrieved, however only the appellants Gopilal and Rajesh have filed the present appeal. However, appellant No. 1 Gopilal has died during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal on behalf of appellant No. 1 is, therefore, abated.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for respondent/State per contra submitted that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is in accordance with law and does not require any interference. He supported the impugned judgment and submitted that it is based on valid and cogent reasons and proper marshalling of evidence. Hence he prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed.