Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 46 (MP)

RAMPRASAD v. STATE OF MADHYA

2009-01-09

AJIT SINGH

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT no. 1 Ram Prasad, appellant no. 2 Ramanuj, appellant no. 3 Santosh Kumar, appellant no. 4 Maksudan prasad and appellant no. 5 Ramesh Prasad have been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 250/-each or in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month by the impugned judgment dated 31. 8. 1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 41/1989 by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa. By the same judgment appellant no. 6 Rajendra Prasad and appellant no. 7 Kailash have been convicted under section 324 of the indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each or in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for three months. ( 2. ) THE prosecution case that has been proved against the appellants is that on 13. 11. 1988 at about 4. 30 p. m. they caused simple injuries to Ramkishan (P. W. 1), Kemla (P. W. 3), Rajesh Kumar Pandey (P. W. 5) and Gayaprasad (P. W. 7 ). Appellant no. 6 Rajendra Prasad and appellant no. 7 kailash are said to have used axe whereas the remaining appellants had used lathis in the assault. The first information report, Ex. P1, was lodged immediately after the incident by Ramkishan (P. W. 1) at Police Station Panwar, district Rewa. All the injured persons named above have testified in one voice that they were caused injuries by the appellants who are also their relatives and the incident took place because of the property dispute between them. Dr. R. D. Sharma (P. W. 11) had examined Ramkishan (P. W. 1), kemla (P. W. 3), Rajesh Kumar Pandey (P. W. 5) and gayaprasad (P. W. 7) and found simple injuries on their person. There is ample evidence on record to hold that appellant appellant no. 1 Ram Prasad, appellant no. 2 ramanuj, appellant no. 3 Santosh Kumar, appellant no. 4 maksudan Prasad and appellant no. 5 Ramesh Prasad had used lathis whereas appellant no. 6 Rajendra Prasad along with appellant no. 7 Kailash had used axe in the assault. ( 3. ) THE trial court, after appreciating the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. ( 4. 2 ramanuj, appellant no. 3 Santosh Kumar, appellant no. 4 maksudan Prasad and appellant no. 5 Ramesh Prasad had used lathis whereas appellant no. 6 Rajendra Prasad along with appellant no. 7 Kailash had used axe in the assault. ( 3. ) THE trial court, after appreciating the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. ( 4. ) SHRI Akshat Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants, during his argument, submitted that he is not challenging the finding of the trial court, so far as it relates to causing of injuries by the appellants to Ramkishan (P. W. 1), Kemla (P. W. 3), Rajesh Kumar Pandey (P. W. 5) and Gayaprasad (P. W. 7) is concerned as the same stands properly established before the trial court. Thus, the only question which calls for consideration, is as to what sentence has to be awarded to the appellants to meet the ends of justice. ( 5. ) THE incident took place in the year 1988. There is nothing on record to show that the appellants are habitual offenders. Appellant no. 1 Ramprasad and appellant no. 2 ramanuj have served 10 days, appellant no. 3 Santosh kumar, appellant no. 4 Maksudan Prasad and appellant no. 5 ramesh Prasad have served 20 days and appellant no. 6 rajendra and appellant no. 7 Kailash have served 14 days of the jail sentence. According to the learned counsel all the appellants have reformed themselves and no useful purpose would be served in sending them back to jail now. ( 6. ) ON due consideration, I am of the opinion that since the incident took place as back as in the year 1988, I do not find that any useful purpose would be served in sending the appellants back to jail now. I, therefore, set aside the sentence of four months rigorous imprisonment awarded to appellant no. 1 Ram Prasad, appellant no. 2 Ramanuj, appellant no. 3 Santosh Kumar, appellant no. 4 Maksudan prasad and appellant no. 5 Ramesh Prasad under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year to appellant no. 6 Rajendra Prasad and appellant no. 7 Kailash under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and instead award a sentence for the period already undergone by them. The sentence of fine is, however, affirmed. ( 7. 5 Ramesh Prasad under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year to appellant no. 6 Rajendra Prasad and appellant no. 7 Kailash under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and instead award a sentence for the period already undergone by them. The sentence of fine is, however, affirmed. ( 7. ) WITH the above modification in the sentence, the appeal is partly allowed.