Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1130 (MP)

Ram Prasad S/o. Girdhari Kewat v. State of M. P.

2012-11-06

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2012
Judgment A.K. Shrivastava, J.;- 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.9.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge Panna in Special Case No. 113/1997 convicting the appellant under Section 324/34 IPC and thereby sentencing him to 6 months RI and fine of ` 500/- and in default further 3 months RI, the appellant has taken shelter of this Court by preferring this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Facts in detail are already narrated in para 3 of the impugned judgment and for convenience they are not being reproduced here. Suffice it to say that present appellant was tried for charges punishable under Sections 326 IPC and also under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "Act"), however, learned Trial Court did not find the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act proved against the appellant and eventually acquitted him from that charge. Learned Trial Court further did not find proved charge under Section 326 IPC against appellant however he was found guilty of offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 2. In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing his judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 3. The contention of learned counsel for appellant is that looking to the evidence placed on record it is not proved that appellant has committed any offence. Alternative submission has also been put-forth by him that if this Court comes to the conclusion that appellant has committed the offence, in that case since incident occurred 15 years ago, it would not be fruitful to send the appellant behind the bars again. It is also contended by him that appellant has suffered jail sentence of 11 days and this would be the appropriate punishment for him for the offence which he has committed. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor argued in support of the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be allowed in part. 6. In the present case injured is Ramdeen (PW1) aged about 10 years. He has categorically stated in his testimony that appellant dealt sickle blow which landed on his left thigh region. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be allowed in part. 6. In the present case injured is Ramdeen (PW1) aged about 10 years. He has categorically stated in his testimony that appellant dealt sickle blow which landed on his left thigh region. This witness was cross-examined at length but nothing has been carved out from his testimony. Testimony of this witness has been further corroborated by evidence of MLC doctor V.S. Upadhyay (PW3) and his MLC report is Ex.P/3 in which he has found no bony injury. Hence, I am of the view that Trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellant under section 324 IPC. 7. I shall now advert to alternative submission put-forth by learned counsel for appellant. The incident had occurred in the year 1996 i.e. more than 15 years ago and the appellant has been directed to suffer jail sentence of six months RI. He has already suffered jail sentence of 11 days and it would not be fruitful to send him behind the bar after near about 15 years., however, the amount of fine Rs. 500/- is enhanced to Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand). Let the balance amount shall be deposited by the appellant on or before 31.3.2013 in the Trial Court, failing which he shall further undergo two months RI. Learned Trial Court is hereby directed to do the needful in this regard. The bail bonds of this appellant shall stand cancelled only after he deposits entire amount of fine on or before said date. 8. Appellant is hereby directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 17.12.2012 and shall deposit the balance amount of fine. If appellant is unable to deposit the balance amount on this date or deposits only part of the entire amount, learned Trial Court shall give a date to him to deposit the remaining amount and if on that date also, the appellant fails to deposit the amount, a further date may be given but that date should not exceed beyond 31.3.2013 and by this date appellant should deposit the balance fine amount, failing which he shall undergo the jail sentence of two months RI. In case appellant fails to appear before learned Trial Court on 17.12.2012, the Trial Court shall issue notice to his surety and may pass necessary order against him in accordance with law. After depositing the amount of fine or sending the appellant to jail, the Trial Court shall intimate the Registry of this Court. The Registry is hereby directed to send the original bail bonds papers to learned Trial Court and a photocopy thereof be retained in this file. It is further made clear that after entire amount of fine is deposited by the appellant, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed in part. The conviction of appellant under Section 324 IPC is hereby affirmed, however, the sentence is hereby modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.