Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1419 (MP)

Jhunni Lal v. State of M. P.

2011-12-14

T.K.KAUSHAL

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been preferred against judgment dated 24.4.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore, District Jabalpur in S.T.No. 87/2000 convicting the petitioners under section 325 of IPC and sentenced to 6 months RI and Rs. 500/- fine. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that in the intervening night 9-10 January, 94, Harilal (PW-1) was going on field was surronded by petitioners and was assaulted by them with lathies PW-1 sustained as many as 9 injuries including fracture of metacarpal bone of left hand. FIR was lodged at Police Station Majhgava and then regular case was registered at Crime No. 1418/94 under section 324, 325 and 294 of IPC against the petitioner. PW-1 was sent for medical examination and was sent for X-ray examination also. 3. Completing the investigation police Majhgava submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners under section 324, 325 and 294 of IPC. Trial Court framed charges under section 294, 325 of IPC. Appellants abjured guilt. 4. To substantiate the case of the prosecution statement of Harilal S/o Bhurelal (PW-1), Munna Lal (PW-2), Jhurri Lal brother of injured (PW-3), Bhagwandas (PW-4), Dr. M.M. Agrawal (PW-5) and Dr. (Smt.) S. Pandey were recorded. Defence of the petitioners in trial Court was false implication. 5. To substantiate the defence of the petitioners statement of Dwarka (DW-1) and Ammu (DW-2). 6. Appreciating the aforesaid evidence petitioners have been convicted under section 325 of IPC and sentenced to 6 months RI and fine of Rs. 500/-. 7. Aforesaid judgment of Trial Court was assailed by the petitioners by way of appeal in Sessions Court. Vide impugned order conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court was affirmed, appeal was rejected. 8. This petition has been prefereds on the grounds appreciation of evidence is not proper. Conviction is bad in law and sentence is harsh. On the other hand Panel Lawyer supported the conviction and sentence. 9. In view of the evidence of PW-1 injured and in view of the medical evidence it has been revealed that injured sustained as many as 9 injuries including fracture of metacarpal of his left palm. I see no perversity in concurrent findings of the facts by the Trial Court in this regard, hence conviction under section 325 of IPC is hereby affirmed. 10. I see no perversity in concurrent findings of the facts by the Trial Court in this regard, hence conviction under section 325 of IPC is hereby affirmed. 10. At this stage, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner has suffered custody period of 13 days i.e. from 24.4.2000 to 6.5.2002 pending this revision. This incident has occurred in the year 1994 after about more than 16 years of the incident no useful purpose would be served in sending the petitioner back in jail. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case for an offence under section 325 of IPC mainly causing a fracture on the palm of the deceased 16 years ago, jail sentence of 30 days seems to be just, proper and sufficient. Sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, however, fine of Rs. 500/- is enhanced to Rs. 2,000/-. In default petitioners shall undergo 2 months simple imprisonment. 12. At this stage, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been informed that petitioner Jhunnilal has expired in the year 2004. 13. As discussed above revision petition is allowed in part. Conviction of petitioner under section 325 is affirmed. Jail sentence is reduced to already undergone. Fine sentence is enhanced. 14. Petitioners are directed to remain present before the trial Court on 14.2.2012 to deposit balance amount of fine or to undergo the default of sentence as the case may be. If fact of death of petitioner Jhunnilal is established then against him further proceeding shall stand dropped.