Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1124 (MP)

Bhairo v. State of M. P.

2012-11-06

N.K.GUPTA

body2012
Judgment N.K. Gupta, J.;- 1. This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16/6/2007 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in ST No. 217/2005, whereby the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced for two years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine amount, three months' RI was also directed. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 18.3.2005 the complainant Devendra Singh lodged an FIR before the Police Station Gaur Jhamar District Sagar that on the day at about 7:00 PM in the evening he along with his father and Shankar was coming back to his house situated at Village Rampur (Police Station Gaur Jhamar District Sagar). The appellant Bhairo and other two accused persons restrained them in the way. The appellant Bhairo had an axe, whereas other accused persons had a sword and stick. They assaulted the complainant by such weapons. He could be saved by Shankar and father of the complainant. The complainant was sent for his medico legal examination. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the JMFC Deori, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Sagar and ultimately it was transferred to the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar. 2. The appellant-accused abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea but he has stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter. No defence evidence was adduced. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the prosecution evidence acquitted the appellant from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 294, 452 and 307 of IPC, but convicted him for the offence under Section 326 of IPC 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 at the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the appellant does not challenge the conviction directed against him, but he prays for reduction of the sentence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant remained in the custody for 305 days during the trial and thereafter he remained in the custody for sometime during the appeal. He has completed the custody of more than 17 months in all. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant remained in the custody for 305 days during the trial and thereafter he remained in the custody for sometime during the appeal. He has completed the custody of more than 17 months in all. As argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, it appears that the appellant was the first offender and he caused three injuries to the victim. Out of them, one injury was grave and other injuries were superficial in nature. The appellant was a young youth of 25 years of age at the time of incident. Though he could not be enlarged on probation, but looking to his age and his first offence, his sentence can be reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody, because he remained in the custody for more than 17 months. However, it would be proper to enhance the fine amount imposed upon the appellant. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal of the present appellant is partly allowed. The conviction directed against the appellant for the offence under Section 326 of IPC is hereby maintained, but his sentence is reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody by enhancing the fine amount from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 4,000/-. The appellant is directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today, failing which he shall undergo for one year's rigorous imprisonment. If fine amount is deposited by the appellant, then a sum of Rs. 4,000/- may be given to the complainant Devendra S/o Shri Sibbu, R/o Village Rampur, Police Station Gaur Jhamar District Sagar by way of a compensation. 7. At present the appellant is on bail, and therefore his presence is no more required before this Court. It is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information and compliance.