Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 205 (MP)

Pran Singh v. State of M. P.

2003-01-30

R.B.DIXIT

body2003
JUDGMENT Initially, the petitioners were prosecuted by trial Court for offence under section 148, 123 and 126 read with section 149 of IPC but because of compromise between the parties, they were convicted only for offence under section 148 and 126 read with section 149 of IPC. However, in appeal, learned appellate Court by the impugned order modified the conviction from section 148 or 147 of IPC as regards petitioners No.2 to 5 only hut maintained sentence as awarded by trial Court. Complainant Mahendra Singh (PW 1) has admitted in his cross-examination that they were also prosecuted in connection with causing hurt to accused Bundel Singh, Ramhahu, Suresh, Mukesh and Awdhesh certified copy or judgment dated 21.8.1998 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 168/97 of 1st Addl. Judge to Sessions Judge, Guna, indicates complainant along with Suresh. Bhanwar Singh, Sessions, Srilal, Raghuvir Singh, Gajju, Govinda, Aziz Khan and Ghanshyam were prosecuted under section 148, 506 and 123 read with section 149 of IPC. However, because of compromise between the parties, they were convicted only under section 323 of IPC and sentenced with fine of Rs. 500/- each. In view of the fact that there was a cross-case and both the parties have received injuries in the same incident, no offence u/s 147 or 149 of IPC is said to have been made out. Therefore, except petitioner Pran Singh, other petitioners arc entitled to benefit of doubt, in so far is offence u/s 147, 126 read with section 149 of IPC is concerned. Pran Singh is also entitled to benefit of doubt u/s 148 and 149 of IPC. However, he is liable to he convicted for offence u/s 126 of IPC. In so far as sentence is concerned, learned counsel for petitioner Pran Singh, relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Ishaq v. State of M.P. reported in 1997 Volume 2 CrLJ (M.P.) 429. wherein the case of compromise, it was thought fit to reduce sentence to the extent of fine only. For the reasons stated here-in-above, this revision is allowed and it is directed that petitioner No.2 to 5 Bundel Singh, Awadhesh, Suresh and Mukesh are entitled for benefit of doubt. Their sentence and conviction u/s 147 and 326 read with actice 149 of IPC is hare by set-aside. Conviction of Praning under section 148 and 149 of IPC is also set-aside. Their sentence and conviction u/s 147 and 326 read with actice 149 of IPC is hare by set-aside. Conviction of Praning under section 148 and 149 of IPC is also set-aside. However, he is found guilty for offence u/s 326 of IPC and sentenced to the sentence already undergone by him together with fine as imposed by trial Court.