Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 271 (MP)

Sooraj Singh v. State of M. P.

2011-02-24

G.S.SOLANKI

body2011
JUDGMENT G.S. Solanki, J. 1. The Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by judgment dated 18.9.2006 passed by the Special Judge, Shahdol in Special Case No. 65 of 2005 whereby the Appellant has been convicted under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 200/- with default stipulation. 2. The prosecution's case in short is that on 19.7.2005 at about 11:00 PM when Chamru Basor (PW-3) was sitting in the house of his brother-in-law Munna (PW-6), then Appellant Sooraj Singh came in yard and demanded cock. When complainant told him that he has no cock, Appellant abused, threatened and assaulted him. Complainant was saved by the witnesses. A report was lodged at P.S. A.J.K. Umariya. A crime was registered against the Appellant. Complainant was sent for medical examination. Dr. B.K. Prajapati (PW-1) examined him. After usual investigation, Appellant was charge sheeted before Special Judge, Shahdol. Learned Special Judge, Shahdol framed the charges under Section 294, 506-II, 323 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 4. On appraisal of evidence on record, learned trial Court acquitted the Appellant from the charges under Section 294, 506-II of IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, however, convicted him under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that he is not challenging the conviction part recorded by the trial Court. He has confined the prayer with respect to sentence awarded to the Appellant. He has submitted that Appellant was in jail for 10 days during trial and after conviction from 18.9.2006 to 18.10.2006 (approx. 1 month and 10 days). He has submitted that ends of justice would be met in case Appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone. 6. Learned Counsel for the State has supported the judgment and justified the findings recorded by the trial Court. 7. I have perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other material on record. Considering the statements of complainant Chamru (PW-3), Munna (PW-6) and Dr. 6. Learned Counsel for the State has supported the judgment and justified the findings recorded by the trial Court. 7. I have perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other material on record. Considering the statements of complainant Chamru (PW-3), Munna (PW-6) and Dr. B.K. Prajapati (PW-1), the conviction recorded by the trial Court is affirmed, however, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in which the incident took place on the spur of the moment on demanding the cock by the Appellant, there was no preplanned, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be met in case Appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone i.e. approx 1 month and 10 days and fine of Rs. 200/-. 8. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the Appellant recorded by the trial Court under Section of IPC is affirmed. Sentence awarded by the trial Court is set aside. Appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone (approx. 1 month and 10 days) and fine of Rs. 200/-. Appellant is on bail, his bail bond and security bond stand cancelled.