Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 461 (MP)

Jaiprakash v. State Of M. P.

2010-04-21

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2010
ORDER : This revision is directed by the applicant-accused under section 399, read with section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30-6-2008 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Appeal No. 187/08 affirming the judgment dated 21-5-2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bhopal in Criminal Case No. 1219/05 convicting and sentencing the applicants for the offence under sections 452, 324 and 323 of Indian Penal Code with RI one year with fine of Rs. 500, RI six months and SI three months respectively under such sections. It is noted that in appeal while affirming the aforesaid conviction sentence awarded under section 452 of Indian Penal Code is reduced by the Appellate Court from one year to six months. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that one Laxman Prasad - complainant after purchasing a plot from one Heeralal (since deceased) constructed his house on it. There was some tree on his plot. On dated 22-12-2002 when the complainant was cutting such tree, then one Heeralal, (since deceased), came there and asked the complainant why he is cutting the tree, on which the complainant abused them in filthy languages. Subsequent to this incident after sometime said Heeralal accompanied with his son, the present applicant Jai Prakash lashed with stick and farsa respectively came to the complainant's place where Heeralal gave a blow of stick, while he was subjected to blow of farsa by the applicant. When Mohan Prasad came to rescue him, then he was also subjected to blow of stick by Heeralal. Resultantly, the complainant and Mohan sustained injuries on which to get shelter, they entered in the house of victim Laxman following them, the applicant and Heeralal also entered in his house and again beaten them inside the house also. The incident was witnessed by so many persons present there. The victims were taken to hospital where their MLC report were prepared. After registration of the offence and holding investigation the applicant and his father - Heeralal were charge-sheeted for the above mentioned offence. On framing the charges they abused the guilty, on which trial was held. During trial one of the accused Heeralal died. On appreciation of the evidence, the applicant was convicted and sentenced, as stated above. On filing the appeal, the same was also dismissed. On framing the charges they abused the guilty, on which trial was held. During trial one of the accused Heeralal died. On appreciation of the evidence, the applicant was convicted and sentenced, as stated above. On filing the appeal, the same was also dismissed. However, the jail sentence awarded under section 452 of Indian Penal Code was reduced as stated above, on which the applicant has come forward to this Court with this revision. 3. It is noted that in pendency of this revision, the parties entered in a promise, on which IA No. 641/10 and IA No. 642/10 for permission to compound the offence and compromise application with the joint signatures of the parties were filed. On consideration of the same, vide order dated 15-3-2010, the same has been allowed with respect of the offence under section 323 of Indian Penal Code and taking into consideration that offence under section 324 and 452 are not made compoundable under the law, such applications were partly dismissed in that regard. 4. The appearing counsel of the applicant after taking me through the evidence and exhibited papers on record, initially argued the case for acquittal of the applicant but in view of availability of overwhelming evidence against the applicant with respect of the alleged offence, on making some query, he restricted his arguments only for extending the benefit of Probation of Offender's Act to the applicant. According to him he being the first offender, the Court below ought to have extended such benefit, but the same was not given and prayed for extending such benefit. In alternate he said that in any case taking into consideration the factum of compromise by adopting some lenient view his jail sentence be reduced upto the period, for which he has already suffered the custodial punishment between 30-6-2008 to 23-7-2008 by enhancing some amount of fine under the discretion of this Court and prayed to allow this revision accordingly. 5. The aforesaid prayer is opposed by the State's counsel saying that looking to the nature of the incident and the manner in which it was committed by the applicant along with his father, the applicant does not deserve for extending the benefit of probation or to reduce the awarded jail sentence in any manner and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 6. 6. Having heard, after perusing the record and the deposition of the victims and other witnesses, I am of the considered view that the Courts below have not committed any error in holding the applicant guilty for the alleged offence, hence till this extent the finding of the Courts below are hereby affirmed. 7. It is apparent fact on record that in pendency of this revision the matter has been compromised between the parties and considering the same, the applicant has been acquitted from the charge of section 323 of Indian Penal Code. In such premises, I am of the view that even after affirming the findings of the Courts below, holding applicant guilty, in view of the factum of compromise, the applicant deserves for reducing his jail sentence awarded under sections 452 and 324 of Indian Penal Code. Before considering the question f reduction of jail sentence, the Court has to consider whether the applicant deserves for extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders' Act or not. 8. After perusing the depositions of the victims and other witnesses and other available record, I am of the view that this is not a fit case in which benefit of Probation of Offenders' Act can be extended to the applicant. Hence such prayer hereby fails. 9. In view of factum of compromise between the parties and keeping in view their future relations and welfare, I reduce the jail sentence of the applicant awarded by the trial Court and modified by the Appellate Court under sections 452 and 324 of Indian Penal Code upto to the period for which he has already undergone between 30-6-2008 to 23-7-2008, the date of the appellate Court's judgment and the date of passing the order by this Court for suspension of his jail sentence by enhancing the amount of fine from Rs. 500 to Rs. 1500/- in each of the sections, i.e. sections 452 and 324 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is modified. Therefore, while dismissing this appeal on merits, the jail sentence of the applicant awarded under sections 452 and 324 of Indian Penal Code both are reduced upto the period for which he has already undergone, as stated above by enhancing the fine in each of such sections from Rs. 500 to Rs. 1500. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is modified. Therefore, while dismissing this appeal on merits, the jail sentence of the applicant awarded under sections 452 and 324 of Indian Penal Code both are reduced upto the period for which he has already undergone, as stated above by enhancing the fine in each of such sections from Rs. 500 to Rs. 1500. If the remaining fine amount is not deposited within 30 days from today, then the applicant has to suffer further two months SI separately for each of the default. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed with aforesaid modification in the sentences. The bail bond of the applicant is hereby discharged.