Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1342 (MP)

Gulab Singh v. State of M. P.

2008-11-18

S.S.DWIVEDI

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under section 374 (2) of CrPC, feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of cQnviction and sentence dated 8.11.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karela district Shivpuri in ST No. 185/2000; whereby the appellant has been found guilty under section 307 of IPC and sentenced to 8 years RI with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, further ordered to suffer imprisonment for six months. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 18.3.2000, police officer Ajay Sharma posted at police station Jigna district Shivpuri received a secret information that the notified dacoit Hajrath Singh with his gang was present near village Saliyya on the hill track for preparing commission of the offence of some robbery. On this information, the police officer Ajay Sharma together with other police officers surrounded the place concerned and thereafter asked the accused persons to surrender before them. At that time, it is alleged that the concerning dacoits started firing on the police party. Police officer Ajay Sharma has caught the present appellant-accused on the spot, remaining co-accused persons ran away from the spot due to darkness on the place of incident. From the possession of the appellant-accused one country made pistol and live cartridge had been seized and he was brought to the police station, police had registered a case under section 307 of IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act against the present appellant-accused together with other three absconding accused and after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed. 3. The appellant-accused abjured the guilt and his defence is of false implication in this case. Learned trial Court after due appreciation of the evidence, held the appellant-accused guilty for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC and sentenced him as stated herein above. Feeling aggrieved by which appellant has preferred this appeal. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he is not challenging the finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court, the only prayer is that the appellant is facing this trial since 2000. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he is not challenging the finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court, the only prayer is that the appellant is facing this trial since 2000. During trial and during pendency of this appeal, the appellant remained in jail near about 2 years 11 months and subsequent to this conviction, no criminal record has been produced by the prosecution. It is further submitted that as per the allegation, none of the police officer sustained any fire arm injury alleged to be caused by appellant-accused and in view of that only prayed for just reduction of the jail sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State supported the impugned judgment and submits that prosecution has fully proved the charge against the appellant-accused and no grounds are available for any interference in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court, hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. As before this Court, finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court has not been challenged by the appellant-accused and the concerning charge has also been proved by the prosecution on the basis of the statement of Rakesh Kumar (PW 1) who stated that the police party surrounded the dacoits near Indurasi Pahadiya area, at that time the dacoits started firing on the police party and after due care, police party had caught the present appellant from the spot armed with gun and live cartridge. On inquiry his name was found to be Gulab Singh and from his possession the country made pistol and live cartridge had been seized. This statement of Rakesh Kumar has got further support by the statement of Krishnapal Singh (PW 2), Rajbahadur Singh (PW 3) and Ajay Sharma (PW 4) police officials present on the spot; and surrounded the dacoits at the time of firing. In view of the present appellant together with other three accused persons who are absconding had started firing on the police party with intend to cause the death. In view of that, the learned trial Court has rightly held the present appellant-accused guilty for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC, therefore, finding of conviction is affirmed. 8. In view of the present appellant together with other three accused persons who are absconding had started firing on the police party with intend to cause the death. In view of that, the learned trial Court has rightly held the present appellant-accused guilty for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC, therefore, finding of conviction is affirmed. 8. With regard to sentence is concerned, admittedly the charge sheet has been filed in the year 2000. The appellant-accused is in custody during trial from 18.3.2000 to the date of impugned judgment 8.11.2001 and he has been released on bail on 18.2.2003 as per the order passed by this Court, therefore, the total period of detention for 2 years 11 months and with the remission this period would go up to three years. It is also apparent that none of the police officer had sustained any injury alleged to be caused by the appellant-accused. Therefore, looking to the aforesaid facts and total period of detention and the pendency of this case since 2000, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant-accused appears to be excessive and this can be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant in jail. 9. Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant under section 307 of IPC is affirmed but the sentence of 8 years RI with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- is hereby set aside and instead thereof, he has been sentenced to the period already undergone in jail (2 years 11 months) with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- as awarded by the trial Court; in default of payment of fine he will suffer further imprisonment for three months. Appellant is on bail, fine amount has already been deposited by him. The trial Court shall verify the deposit of the fine amount, if not then summon the appellant for depositing of the fine amount, failing which he be sent to jail for serving the remaining part of jail sentence awarded to him in default of payment of fine. After verification of the deposit of the fine amount, if the fine amount has been deposited, then the bail bond of the appellant shall stand discharged forthwith.