Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 11 (JHR)

Shyam Bali Prasad v. State

2001-01-10

D.N.PRASAD

body2001
ORDER D.N. Prasad, J. 1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment, dated 26.2.1997 passed by Shri P.P. Singh, 4th Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No. 106 of 1995, whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by Shri U.N. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 41 of 1990 as the appellant was convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Short facts of the prosecution case as alleged that the complainant, Anup Kumar Verma was going to bring Grills at at out 11 a.m. on 7.3.1990 from his house and when he reached near Kam-lakant Road, he saw the accused/ petitioner along with four unknown accused persons, who caught hold and started assaulting him with iron rod. It is also alleged that the petitioner attempted to commit murder and started to assault him with iron rod in his right hand which was broken and as such the complainant fell down and thereafter, the accused persons including the petitioner fled away. Complainant filed the complaint case and after inquiry held under Section 202, Cr PC, cognizance was taken under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner appeared in the trial Court and the charge was also framed against him. The witnesses were examined. 3. Having heard both sides and after proving the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo SI in the manner as stated above. 4. On being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi which was also dismissed by the order, dated 26,2.1997, hence, this revision application. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Court below has committed error in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code as no case is made out and the petitioner has been dragged falsely in this case out of previous enmity. It is also submitted that the petitioner, being aged about 75 years, has been falsely implicated in this case and the injury report has been created through private clinic. It is also submitted that the petitioner, being aged about 75 years, has been falsely implicated in this case and the injury report has been created through private clinic. There was also a proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr PC going on between the parties from before and due to enmity he has been dragged falsely in this case and the whole allegation is false and therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Court below is fit to be set-aside. It is also submitted that there was a talk of compromise between the parties and the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code is also com-poundable but the complainant, opposite-party No. 2 was not ready for the compromise. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted that this appeal is limited to be heard only on the point of sentence as it was admitted for hearing only on the point of sentence by an order, dated 11.7.1997. It is further submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment as well as the offence under Section 360, Cr PC will not be applicable against the petitioner, as the petitioner was earlier also convicted in case No. GR 106 of 1989/Trial No. 701 of 1991 and the petitioner is in habit of committing crime and therefore the petitioner has rightly been convicted and sentenced in this case. 7. Obviously, this revision application was admitted for hearing only on the point of sentence as per order, dated 11.7.1997. Thus, the conviction held by the Court below has been confirmed at the time of admission of this revision application. 8. The petitioner was admittedly aged about 67 years on 1.11.1995 on which day the trial Court passed the judgment and this case was also initiated on the basis of complaint case filed on 8.3.1990. It is evident from the evidence on record that the complainant was examined in a Private Nursing Home, (Ext. 1). Further, it appears that the trial Court sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment after considering the old age and the previous enmity between the parties. The case is also pending since long. 9. In the above facts and circumstances, in my view, a fine of Rs. 2,000/-(Two Thousand, in place of simple imprisonment will be suffice for the ends of justice in the instant case. The case is also pending since long. 9. In the above facts and circumstances, in my view, a fine of Rs. 2,000/-(Two Thousand, in place of simple imprisonment will be suffice for the ends of justice in the instant case. Thus, the sentence of imprisonment for six months as SI is modified to the payment of a fine of Rs. 2,000/- which shall be paid to the complainant/injured as compensation. 10. In the result, the petitioner is, hereby, sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-and in default, three months SI and the order of the trial Court for payment of a sum of Rs. 500/- is, hereby, confirmed. The revision application is hereby disposed of with the above modification only in sentence. 11. Disposed of accordingly.