Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 333 (MP)

Prem Narayan v. State of M. P.

2011-03-11

G.S.SOLANKI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under section 374 (2) of CPC being aggrieved by judgment dated 2.7.2009 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur in S.T. No. I 10/2008 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 325 of IPC and sentenced to RI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 100/- with default stipulation. 2. The prosecution's case in short is that on 27.4.2008 when complainant Hariom (PW-8) was going to take bath in holy river Naramda at about 7.00 a.m., appellant and other co-accused persons assaulted him by axe, rod and stick. Lt has been further alleged that there was no previous enmity. Father of complainant Annilal (PW-5) and Rajju @ Rajendra (PW-6) saved him. A report was lodged at P.S. Gadarwara. Complainant was sent for medical examination. Dr. A.P. Singh (PW-3) examined and found one lacerated wound and two other contusions on the body of complainant. In the x-ray examination, he did not find any fracture on the body of the complainant but found fracture in scapula bone of witness Rajju @ Rajendra as per Ex. P16. 3. After usual investigation, appellant and co-accused persons were charge sheeted before the trial Court. Trial Court framed the charge under sections 147, 325/149, 323/149, 323/149, 506 B of the IPC. 4. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 5. On appraisal of evidence on record, co-accused have been convicted under section 323 of IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each whereas the appellant has been convicted under section 325 of IPC as mentioned hereinabove. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is not challenging the conviction recorded by the trial Court under section 325 of the IPC. He has submitted that appellant is in jail for more than 6 months and he has no criminal antecedents, thus the ends of justice would be met in case appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone. 7. Learned counsel for the State has justified the findings recorded and supported the judgment passed by the trial Court. 8. I have perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other material on record. 7. Learned counsel for the State has justified the findings recorded and supported the judgment passed by the trial Court. 8. I have perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other material on record. As before this Court conviction recorded by the trial Court has not been challenged, the finding recorded by the trial Court with respect to conviction of the appellant under section 325 of IPC is hereby affirmed, however, considering the fact that appellant is in jail for the last more than 6 months and he has no criminal antecedents, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met in case appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone. 9. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial Court under section 325 of IPC is affirmed. Sentence awarded by the trial Court is set aside. Appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone (approx. more than 6 months) and fine of Rs. 100/-. Appellant is in jail, he be set at liberty forthwith in case he is not required in any other case. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately along with the copy of this judgment.