Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1128 (MP)

Anil Singh v. State of M. P.

2012-11-06

N.K.GUPTA

body2012
Judgment N.K. Gupta, J.;- 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 8.8.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Pawai, District Panna in S.T. No. 77/09, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced for three months' R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine 15 days' R.I. The prosecution's case, in short is that, on 11.3.2009 the complainant Indradev Singh (PW-1) went to a place Khere for some purpose of worship. He was accompanied by his brother Bahadur Singh. The appellants were sat near the house of Phool Singh and consuming some liquor. Suddenly, Lokaiya Choudhary shouted that the appellants were assaulting the brother of the complainant and therefore, the complainant Indradev Singh rushed to the spot and he was beaten by the appellants. He was taken to the Police Station, Shahnagar, where his report was written in the Rojnamchasanah. The victim was sent to the hospital. He was kept as an indoor patient for a longer period. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the J.M.F.C. Pawai, who committed the case to the Sessions Court Panna, and ultimately it was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai. 2. The appellants abjured their guilt. No defence evidence was adduced. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the prosecution's evidence acquitted the appellants from the charge of the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, but convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 323 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 to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the appellants do not want to challenge the conviction directed against them, but they pray for reduction of the sentence. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that each of the appellants remained in the custody for more than 32 days. They were the first offender and the incident took place in a spur moment. There was no previous enmity between the parties. Under such circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in sending the appellants in the jail on the basis that the victim Indradev Singh sustained a grave injury. They were the first offender and the incident took place in a spur moment. There was no previous enmity between the parties. Under such circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in sending the appellants in the jail on the basis that the victim Indradev Singh sustained a grave injury. If the victim had sustained a grave injury then, the appellant must have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants is acceptable. Looking to the overt act of the appellants, where they were the first offender and the incident took place in a spur moment and also they remained in the custody for more than 32 days, it is a fit case in which the appellants may not be sent to the jail again. Since the trial Court has imposed a maximum fine for that offence upon each of the appellants therefore, there is no question of any enhancement in the fine amount directed by the trial Court. 6. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants is hereby partly allowed. The conviction directed for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC is hereby maintained but the sentence is reduced to the period, which they have already undergone in the custody. No change in the fine amount. 7. At present, the appellants are on bail. Their presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that their bail bonds shall stand discharged. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.