Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 796 (MP)

Dinesh v. State of M. P.

2011-07-21

I.S.SHRIVASTAVA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.12.1996 passed by the Court of Smt. Saroj Mahendra Jain, 2ndA.SJ. Shajapur in S.T. No. 24/96 by which the appellant has been convicted under S. 324 of the IPC with RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 300/-. 2. According to prosecution case on 31.10.95 complainant Durgaprasad was going with the his one year old son Kamal by cycle to his village Kulkheda from Sarangpur. At about 5.00 pm. in the way Dinesh came from the front side and did not give him way. Hence he passed his cycle from his side then Dinesh abused him saying that how he drives the cycle. On protest Dinesh took out knife from his pocket and assaulted on the right side of the chest which caused him bleeding injury. Accused said that today he will kill him and he assaulted second time by knife which caused bleeding injury on his right cheek. Then complainant ran towards the village and in formed neighbours Mangilal, Prabhulal. Ramchandra, Vijaysingh about the incident and they lodged the report Ex. P.I in the police Station Sarangpur, Dist. Rajgarh. Challan was filed under S. 307 of the IPC. After trial the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 3. It has been argued by the appellant's counsel that on sudden provocation the incident took place. The age of the appellant was 25 years at the time of incident. The appellant is facing this trial since 1995 and since last 16 years he is involved in this case. Therefore, his case may be disposed of by maintaining the conviction and by increasing the fine amount and awarding suitable compensation to the complainant. It is not mandatory to convict with fine and sentence both in S. 324 IPC. There was no criminal record against the appellant. 4. Respondent has opposed the prayer. It has been argued that the accused has been found guilty; hence he should be punished. 5. Considered the arguments. Record of the trial Court perused. 6. Considering the circumstances, from the facts of the case it reveals that the incident took place on sudden provocation and injury caused to the complainant was simple in nature. Therefore, offence under S. 307 was not proved. The Appellant has been convicted under S. 324 of IPC. 5. Considered the arguments. Record of the trial Court perused. 6. Considering the circumstances, from the facts of the case it reveals that the incident took place on sudden provocation and injury caused to the complainant was simple in nature. Therefore, offence under S. 307 was not proved. The Appellant has been convicted under S. 324 of IPC. The appellant is involved in this case since 1995 i.e. since last 16 years. At the time of incident he was of 25 years and now at the age of 41 years he is having responsibility 0 his family, though the offence was compoundable at that time. The appellant has been in jail in all for 28 days for this offence. There is no criminal history against the appellant. Therefore, considering the circumstances, it is just that the fine amount be increased and suitable compensation be awarded under S. 357 of the CrPC to the complainant. This will serve the purpose of punishment 7. Therefore, the conviction u/s. 324 of IPC of appellant is maintained and he is sentenced to the period already undergone along with fine of Rs. 5,500/- Out of this fine Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to be complainant Durgaprasad as compensation. In default of fine the appellant has to undergo the sentence awarded by the trial Court. The fine earlier deposited will be adjusted in this fine amount. 8. Hence ordered accordingly.