Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1111 (MP)

Dilip Rajput v. State of M. P.

2012-11-05

N.K.GUPTA

body2012
Judgment N.K. Gupta, J.;- 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 26.4.2011 passed by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No. 510/10, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced for five years' R.I. with fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine, one month's R.I. was directed. The prosecution's case, in short is that, on 7.6.2010 Sub-Inspector Nalin Budholiya of Police Station Lordganj, Jabalpur found the appellant Dilip Rajput alongwith other accused persons near a ground of Sanjay Nagar, Jabalpur having a sword with him. A case for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC was registered. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the C.J.M. Jabalpur, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Jabalpur and ultimately it was transferred to the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. 2. The appellant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea but he has submitted that he was falsely implicated in the matter. No defence evidence was adduced. 3. The learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge after considering the prosecution's evidence acquitted the appellant from the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 399 & 402 of IPC, but convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced as mentioned above. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. After considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the appellant does not want to challenge the conviction directed against him, but he prays for reduction of the sentence. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality. He was falsely implicated in the matter. No reason has been assigned by the trial Court as to why, a minimum sentence was not granted to him. A minimum sentence for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act is one year's only, whereas the appellant remained in the custody for more than 18 months. He is in jail after pronouncement of the judgment, therefore it is prayed that his jail sentence may be reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody. He is in jail after pronouncement of the judgment, therefore it is prayed that his jail sentence may be reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody. It is also submitted that the appellant has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. The contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant appears to be correct. The appellant was the first offender and he was acquitted from the charges of the offence punishable under Sections 399 & 402 of IPC. Under such circumstances, a minimum sentence was to be inflicted upon the appellant. At present, the appellant remained in the custody for more than 18 months and it is a fit case in which his jail sentence may be reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody. 6. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby partly allowed. The conviction directed for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act (Learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur did not mention a proper section) is hereby maintained but the sentence is reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody. No change in the fine amount. 7. At present, the appellant is in the jail and therefore, Registry is directed to issue a supper-session warrant without any delay so that the appellant may be released forthwith, if he has deposited the fine amount. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information and compliance. Attention of the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur is invited that at the time of framing charges, a proper section be mentioned in future.