Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1129 (MP)

Shailendra v. State of M. P.

2012-11-06

N.K.GUPTA

body2012
Judgment N.K. Gupta, J;- 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 5.10.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, East Nimad, Khandwa in S.T. No. 93/12, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced for six months' R.I. with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine one month's R.I. The prosecution's case, in short is that, on 27.6.2012 at about 8:45 p.m. the complainant Dhyana was sitting in front of his house on a cot at village Bamangaon (Police Station Javar, District Khandwa). The appellant was his grandson, who started some quarrel because of family partition. Thereafter, he assaulted the complainant Dhyana causing him some injuries. The victim Dhyana was taken to the Police Station Javar, where he had lodged an FIR Ex.P/5. He was directed for his medico legal examination and x-ray examination. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the J.M.F.C. Khandwa, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Khandwa. 2. The appellant abjured his guilt. He took a plea that his uncle Sampat was the person, who came with a stick and assaulted the father of the appellant but in the meantime, the appellant saved his father Roop Singh and therefore, the assault caused by Sampat to the injured/complainant Dhyana, whereas the appellant was falsely implicated in the matter. However, no defence evidence was adduced. 3. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the prosecution's evidence acquitted the appellant from the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506 part-II and 326 of IPC, but convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 325 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 appears that the appellant does not want to challenge the conviction directed against him, but he prays for reduction of the sentence. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be acceptable that the appellant was a youth of 24 years of age at the time of the incident. He could not be given any advantage of probation on the basis of age and due to any other reason. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be acceptable that the appellant was a youth of 24 years of age at the time of the incident. He could not be given any advantage of probation on the basis of age and due to any other reason. He was the grandson of the victim and the alleged incident was not a preplanned. Also the victim sustained fracture of small bone like a metacarpal bone and therefore, the offence was not so grave. Under such circumstances, looking to the age of the appellant, his lesser grave overt act and the fact that the incident took place in a spur moment, it is a fit case in which there is no need to send the appellant in the jail again. However, some fine may be enhanced. 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 325 of IPC is hereby affirmed but the sentence is reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody, whereas fine is enhanced from the sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the sum of Rs. 5,000/-. 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 nine months' R.I. 7. At present, the appellant is on bail. His presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information and compliance.