Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 307 (MP)

Santosh v. State of M. P.

2010-03-15

N.K.MODY

body2010
JUDGMENT N.K. Mody, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 8-8-2007 passed by Special Judge, Bhind in Case No. 31/2006, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Sections 323/34, 324/34 of IPC and fine of Rs. 3,000/- was imposed with default stipulation, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Case of prosecution was that on 3-11-2005 at about 5.30 p.m. the appellant alongwith other co-accused came to the house of the complainant and requested him to allow them to play cards in his house, but the complainant refused for the same. Thereafter, the appellant alongwith other co-accused person armed with Axe, Lathi and Knife came to the house of the complainant, wherein the complainant alongwith his Aunty Munnidevi were sitting near the door. The appellant alongwith other co-accused person started beating the complainant and his Aunty with the help of Axe, Lathi and Knife. Due to which Munnidevi lost her one hand and sustained grave injuries as well as the complainant also sustained injuries. Case was registered against the appellant. After framing of charge and recording of evidence, appellant was convicted as stated above, against which the present appeal has been filed. 3. Learned Counsel for appellant argued at length and submits that appellant was convicted illegally while appellant has not committed any offence. Learned Counsel submits that the learned Court below committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence which resulted incorrect judgment and is liable to be set aside in this appeal. It is submitted that the learned Court below committed error in not considering material omissions and contradictions appearing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside. 4. In alternative learned Counsel submits that by conviction of the appellant his career will affect adversely, hence, it is also prayed that the benefit under Section 360, Cr.P.C. shall be granted to the appellant so that his service career shall not be affected by his conviction. It is submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the fact that appellant has already deposited the amount of fine the appeal of the appellant be allowed. 5. It is submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the fact that appellant has already deposited the amount of fine the appeal of the appellant be allowed. 5. Learned Counsel for respondent/State submits that after due appreciation of evidence, learned Court below has found the offence proved against the appellant, which requires no interference. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed. 6. From perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in convicting the appellant, hence the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Court below requires no interference and is hereby maintained. 7. Looking to the limited prayer made by the Counsel for the appellant and the nature of offence and the fact that appellant has already the amount of fine the purpose would be served, subject to depositing further sum of Rs. 5,000/- within a period of two months, for which Counsel for the State also agrees, which shall be payable to the complainant/injured Munnidevi. 8. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The findings of conviction is hereby maintained with the modification to the extent that subject to depositing further compensation/fine of Rs. 5,000/- within a period of two months which shall be payable to complainant/injured Munnidevi. It is also made clear that in case of arrest when the appellant fails to deposit the amount he shall be further liable to pay fine @ Rs. 50/- per day and shall be released forthwith upon depositing the amount with fine. It is also made clear that the conviction of the appellant will not affect his service career in any manner. 9. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed of.