Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 503 (MP)

CHAND PATEL v. STATE OF M. P.

2005-04-11

A.K.AWASTHY

body2005
( 1 ) APPELLANTS have filed the appeal under Section 374 of the Cr. EC. against the judgment and order dated 4-7-2000 in S. T. No. 111 /99 passed by learned iurd Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas of the conviction and sentence under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC for the rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine further RI of 6 months. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that on 31-3-1999 at about 2 p. m. in Village Nagda the appellants have caused the injury to complainant mukut (P. W. 1) by lathi, fist and kicks causing injury on his head, hand and leg and the complainant was medically examined by Dr. S. K. Mundra (P. W. 13) who has found five injuries on his body and his report in Ex. P52. After the usual investigation, the charge-sheet against the accused persons was filed. ( 3 ) THE appellants are not challenging the finding of the fact and the limited controversy raised by the appellants is that offence against appellants is made out only under section 325/149 of the IPC and in view of the compromise filed, the appellants deserve to be acquitted. ( 4 ) DR. S. K. Mundra {p. W. 13) has stated that he has examined Mukut (P. W. 1) and found the following injuries on his body. (1) Lacerated wound 3 cm x l/z cm x bone deep on the frontal area of the skull. (2) Lacerated wound 4 cm x Vfe cm into bone deep on the middle of the parietal area. (3) Lacerated wound 1 cm x Vfe cm x Vfe cm on the right leg. (4) Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm front side of the leg. (5) Abrasion on the middle finger. ( 5 ) MUKUT (P. W. 1) remained in Hospital for the treatment for more than one month. There was absence of fracture on his body. From the nature and number of injuries caused and the weapon used it cannot be held safely that the attempt was made to cause the death of Mukut (P. W. 1 ). Consequently, the conviction of the appellant accused under Section 307/149 of the IPC deserves to be converted to Section 325/149 of the IPC. From the nature and number of injuries caused and the weapon used it cannot be held safely that the attempt was made to cause the death of Mukut (P. W. 1 ). Consequently, the conviction of the appellant accused under Section 307/149 of the IPC deserves to be converted to Section 325/149 of the IPC. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has cited a case of Mathai v. State of Kerala, (2005) 3 SCC 260 : (2005 Cri LJ 898)wherein the view was expressed that in an offence under Section 325 of the IPC when the case has remained pending for long time then sentence of the period already undergone will be sufficient. ( 7 ) FROM the order sheet dated 21 -2-2005 it is clear, that complainant Mukut had filed the compromise and it was observed by the court that the compromise was voluntarily made and they have settled their dispute amicably and they want to live peacefully. The compromise was not accepted as the offence under Section 307/149 of the IPC was not compoundable. It was observed by the Court that the fact of the compromise will be taken into consideration at the time of deciding the question of sentence. ( 8 ) IN view of the compromise between the appellants and the complainant, and looking to the fact that the case has become more than 6 years old, and that the appellants have remained in custody for more than one month, the sentence is restricted to the period already undergone. ( 9 ) APPEAL is partly allowed. The conviction and the Jail sentence from Section 307/ 149 for 7 years is reduced to the conviction under Section 325/149 of the IPC and sentence is restricted to the period already undergone. The fine of Rs. 2,000 is maintained and in default of payment of fine, further RI for 6 months. Order accordingly. .