Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 337 (MP)

Ramdin v. State of M. P.

2010-03-19

R.K.GUPTA

body2010
JUDGMENT : R.K. Gupta, J.- Thepresent appeal has been directed by the appellants against the judgment oftheir conviction and order of sentence dated 6.1.1995 passed by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Khurai in Sessions TrialNo. 337 of 1992 whereby the appellant No. 1 Ramdin has been convicted under Section 326, IPC and sentenced to R.I for four yearsand fine of Rs . 2000/- in default R.I. for threemonths. The appellants No. 2 and 3 have been convictedunder Section 323, IPC and sentenced to R.I. for six months and three monthsrespectively. 2.According to the prosecution story the incident occurred on 14.10.1993 at about 3 p.m. when the complainant Ramkishan (PW-1) along withhis wife Shyamabai (PW-2) were passing throughthe standing crops. At that time they were admonished by the appellant No. 1not to pass through their field. Thereafter, it is alleged that all the accusedpersons inflicted injuries to PW-1 & PW-2 by lathis , Dr. Chimelia (PW-10) and Dr. Mishra (P W-11) had medically examined the injured persons and have corroborated theinjuries on the bodies of the complainants. On that basis the learned TrialCourt has convicted and sentenced the appellants in the aforesaid manner. 3.During course of argument Ms. Manisha Shrivastava , learned counsel appearing for the appellantssubmitted that in the present case the incident is quite old as it had takenplace on 14.10.1993 and the appeal has been pending before this Court for morethan 10 years. The appellants have already settled down in life and havefamilies to support. She submitted that appellant No. 1 Ramdin has already been in jail custody from 15.10.1993 to 27.06.1994, appellant Ramnath has undergone jail custody from 15.10.1993 to6.1.1995 and appellant No. 3 Narayan was in jail from15.10.1993 to 23.11.1993 A prayer has been made that keeping in view thesufficient period of sentence already undergone by the appellants and pendency of the case for more than 10 years the sentenceimposed up to the appellants deserves to be reduced. Learned counsel appearingfor the appellants restricted her argument on the imposition of sentence onlyand did contend that the interest of justice would be meet, if the fine amountas regards the appellant No. 1 is enhanced to Rs .5,000/-and appellants No. 2 and 3 are imposed a fineamount of Rs . 1,000/- each. Learned counsel appearingfor the appellants restricted her argument on the imposition of sentence onlyand did contend that the interest of justice would be meet, if the fine amountas regards the appellant No. 1 is enhanced to Rs .5,000/-and appellants No. 2 and 3 are imposed a fineamount of Rs . 1,000/- each. 4.In view of the aforesaid, considering the nature of allegations levelled against these three appellants, I find that theperiod of sentence already undergone by them would meet the ends of justice,provided sentence of fine is appropriately enhanced. 5.Resultantly, while upholding the conviction of these three appellants theirsubstantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them, as itis stated on behalf of these appellants, the fine amount imposed by the TrialCourt on appellant No. 1 is enhanced to Rs . 5,000/-and the appellants No. 2 and 3 are imposed a fine amount of Rs .1,000/- each, which shall be deposited by the appellants within a period of twomonths from the order passed today. The fine amount, already deposited by theappellants with the Trial Court shall be adjusted and fifty per cent of thefine amount shall be paid to the injured persons. The appellants are on bail.Subject to deposition of fine amount as now imposed on the appellants theirbail bonds and sureties shall stand discharged. The appeal is allowed in part.