Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 314 (MP)

JAWAHARLAL v. STATE OF M. P.

2008-02-26

S.C.VYAS

body2008
Judgment S.C.VYAS, J. ( 1. ) The legality and propriety of the judgment of criminal appeal No 42/1997 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa dated 14.7.1998 is under challenge in this revision whereby the learned Sessions Court has confirmed the finding of conviction and order of sentence recorded by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewa against the present applicant in criminal case No.267/1996 whereby applicants Jawaharlal, Mahaveer and Rajendra vide judgment dated 14.2.1997 were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 147 and 324 read with 149 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and 6 months respectively for these offences alongwith fine of Rs.100/-. It has further been, directed that they will undergo rigorous imprisonment of 1 month -in default of payment of fine. ( 2. ) The short facts of the case as apparent from the judgment of the Trial Court are, that on 24.12.1998 in the evening about 5 p.m. when complainant Ramswaroop, Ravishankar and Budhesen were coming back to home, they were intercepted in the way by the present applicants and the other accused persons who have been released on probation of good conduct by the Trial Court. It is alleged that present applicants were armed with sticks and one Ramvati who has been acquitted by Appellate Court brought the axe and handed it over to applicant No.1 Jawahar for causing injury by that weapon to Ramswaroop. Thereafter present applicants also caused lathi blows to said Ramswaroop who sustained injuries. The matter was reported to the police and on the basis of FIR offence was registered. As per medical report of Dr.N.Narendranath Mishra, he sustained one incised wound, two abrasions and swelling. In the same incident Kamala also sustained 6-7 incised wounds. After investigation the chargesheet was filed against these applicants and other accused persons. They were tried by learned Magistrate, ultimately they were found guilty and have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. ( 3. ) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he does not want to challenge the finding of guilty of the present applicants as recorded by the Trial Court and prayed that the matter be heard only on the quantum of sentence. ( 4. ) Otherwise also the record of Trial Court shows that the apart from Ramswaroop, Kamala (PW/2) and Budhesen (PW/3) have also been produced as eye witness. ( 4. ) Otherwise also the record of Trial Court shows that the apart from Ramswaroop, Kamala (PW/2) and Budhesen (PW/3) have also been produced as eye witness. Bhimsen (PW/4) has also seen the incident. All these witnesses they supported the case of prosecution. The matter was reported immediately to the police and the expert opinion of Dr. Narendranath Mishra (PW/7) has also corroborated to the prosecution story. Therefore, on facts there is no scope of interference in the finding of guilty and conviction recorded by Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. ( 5. ) Only on quantum of the sentence learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident happened in the years 1998 at that time the applicant No.l Jawaharlal was 25 years of age, applicant No.2 Mahaveer was old person of 60 years age and applicant No.3 Rajendra was 24 years of age. It has been submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the applicants are habitual offender or earlier any case was registered against them. In these circumstances it has been submitted that the applicants are first offenders. Being first offenders they could also be extended the benefit of provision of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. In alternative it has also been argued that the applicant are facing the agony of criminal trial and thereafter from the date of judgment the fear of going to jail for last so many years. The incident was 20 years old and applicants are suffering during these 20 years by facing criminal prosecution and it can be termed sufficient punishment to them and in these circumstances it has been prayed that in place of sending them to jail they may he sentenced with fine only. ( 6. ) I have taken into consideration these arguments and perused the judgment of trial court as well as appellate court and the record of the trial court. From the judgment of the appellate court it appears that the other accused persons namely Virendra and Babulal have been released under Section 4 of Prabation of Offenders Act, looking to the mandatory provision of Section 6 in view of the fact that both are of 20 years age. So far the present applicants are concerned the appellate court declined to extend the same benefit to them because they had crossed the age of 21 years. So far the present applicants are concerned the appellate court declined to extend the same benefit to them because they had crossed the age of 21 years. So far provision of Section 4 of Act are concerned if the offence is punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years and when there is case of first offender then the benefit of that Act can also be extended to such first offender. In the present case as argued, all the three applicants are first offenders. There is nothing on record to indicate that any offence was registered against them in past. Offence under Section 147-324/149 IPC have been found proved against them beyond reasonable doubt. The maximum punishment prescribed under Section 147 is 2 years and for the offence punishable under Section 324 the maximum punishment prescribed is 3 years along with or without fine. It is clear that no offence is proved against the applicants punishable with imprisonment for 7 years or more. In these circumstances when the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act was extended to other accused persons then the same benefit should have been provided to the present applicants also looking to the nature of the offence and circumstances under which it has been committed. ( 7. ) Therefore, I find that learned Appellate Court has committed irregularity and so the revision deserves to be allowed. The same is hereby allowed. In place of sending the applicants to jail it is directed that they be released on probation of good conduct for a period of 3 years and to serve the sentence as and when called upon during the period of 3 years on their furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000/- and surity of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Such bond and surity should be produced before the Trial Court within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to CJM, Rewa. Revision allowed.