Mannu Lal vs State Of M.P.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33501
1 CRA-353-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
nd
ON THE 2 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 353 of 2010
CNR No.: MPHC030080472010
MANNU LAL AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Pramod Gohadkar - Advocate for the appellant No.1 and 2.
Shri Harshit Sharma - Advocate for the appellant No.3 and 4.
Shri Atul Sharma - PP for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), has been preferred against the judgment dated
15.04.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Guna (M.P.), in
Sessions Trial No. 96/2004, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 325/34, 323/34 and 341 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year
each, along with a fine of Rs. 500/- each, simple imprisonment for six months
each, and simple imprisonment for one month each, respectively, with default
stipulations.
2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted
that the appellants do not wish to challenge the findings of conviction recorded by
the learned trial Court and have confined the present appeal only to the question of
sentence.
3. As per the prosecution story, the complainant, Chiman, son of Malu,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAM KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:27:44 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33501
2 CRA-353-2010
submitted a written complaint dated 07.07.2004 to the Station House Officer,

Bahadurpur, alleging that his brother Ghasiram had been allotted 2½ bighas of
agricultural land by the Government on lease (patta), which they had been
cultivating. On 02.07.2004, when the complainant and his brother Mohan went to
sow crops on the land after preparing it for cultivation, the appellants, namely
Mannu, Bhikam, Rambabu and Gopal, stopped them near the field, abused them
in filthy language and threatened to prevent them from cultivating the land,
claiming ownership over it. When the complainant and his brother objected, all
four persons assaulted them with sticks, an axe, slaps and fists, causing injuries to
Mohan, including an injury to his head. The incident was reported to the police,
and medical examination and X-ray examination were conducted. The
complainant further alleged that Mohan had not fully recovered from his injuries,
that the accused persons continued to threaten them with dire consequences, and
that they had sown jowar on the allotted land with the intention of forcibly taking
possession of it. Therefore, action be taken against the accused under Harijan Act.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a criminal case was registered and,
after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the
competent Court. Charges for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 325 and
323 read with Section 34 of the IPC, as well as Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
were framed against the appellants. The appellants denied the charges and claimed
to be tried. After conclusion of the trial, the appellants were convicted and
sentenced as mentioned hereinabove.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the incident in
question occurred in the year 2004 and that the appellants have been facing the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAM KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:27:44 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33501
3 CRA-353-2010
agony of trial for almost 22 years. It is further submitted that during the course of

investigation, trial and after conviction, appellant No. 1, Mannu, remained in
custody for a period of 58 days; appellant No. 2, Bhikam, remained in custody for
about 27 days; appellant No. 3, Gopal, remained in custody for about 27 days; and
appellant No. 4, Rambabu, also remained in custody for about 27 days. It is
contended that the period already undergone by the appellants constitutes a
substantial part of the sentence imposed upon them. It is also submitted that
appellant No. 3, Gopal, is 71 years of age. The appellants have already deposited
the fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court, and there is nothing on record
to indicate that they have misused the liberty granted to them during the pendency
of the proceedings. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellants has
prayed that, while maintaining the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court,
the substantive sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already
undergone by the appellants by suitably enhancing the amount of fine.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer
for reduction of sentence and supported the impugned judgment. It was submitted
that the learned trial Court had properly appreciated the evidence available on
record and had imposed a sentence commensurate with the nature of the offences
committed by the appellants. It was, therefore, prayed that no interference with the
sentence awarded by the learned trial Court was warranted.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly
the fact that the appellants are not challenging their conviction; that the incident
occurred in the year 2004 and they have faced the rigours of criminal prosecution
for almost 22 years and further considering that, except appellant No. 3, Gopal,
who is 71 years of age, the remaining appellants are middle-aged persons, that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAM KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:27:44 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33501
4 CRA-353-2010
they are first-time offenders with no criminal antecedents brought on record, and

that their conduct during incarceration has been reported to be satisfactory, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately
served by reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already
undergone by the appellants.
9. However, having regard to the nature of the offences and in order to
balance the equities, the amount of fine deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 500/- to
Rs. 2,000/- each. The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited by the appellants
within a period of two months from today, failing which they shall undergo the
sentence as imposed by the learned trial Court. Upon such deposit, the enhanced
amount of fine shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
10. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds stand
discharged.
11. Accordingly, with the aforesaid modification in the quantum of
sentence, the appeal stands disposed of.
(PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE
Rks

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAM KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:27:44 AM