Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1144 (MP)

Bhondu Lohar 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 29.11.2008 passed by the Special Judge, Mandla under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Special Case No. 50/92, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 327 & 294 of IPC and sentenced for three years' R.I. with fine of ` 2,000/- and three months' R.I. respectively. In default of payment of fine, six months' R.I. was also directed. The prosecution's story, in short is that, on 11.8.2006 the complainant Nanhe Singh was going to his house situated at village Bhim Dongri (Police Station Motinala, District Mandla) from the house of one Kissa Gond. In the way, the appellant restrained him and demanded some money so that he could consume some liquor, but the complainant did not give any money and therefore, the appellant assaulted him. The appellant also abused the complainant with the obscene words as well as the words relating to his caste. The complainant Nanhe Singh had lodged an FIR at Police Station, Motinala on the next day. He was directed for his medico legal examination. He sustained some simple injuries. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the C.J.M. Mandla, who committed the case to the Special Court, Mandla. 2. The appellant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea, but he has stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter. 3. The learned Special Judge after considering the prosecution's evidence acquitted the appellant from the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 506 (Part-II) of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, but convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 294 & 327 of IPC and sentenced him 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, it appears that the appellant does not challenge the conviction directed against him, whereas he challenges only the sentence directed against him. The appellant remained in the custody for 47 days during the trial and thereafter, he was taken into the custody on 29.11.2008. However, a bail order was passed in his favour but he did not furnish any bail bonds in compliance to that order and therefore, it appears that he remained in the custody for more than two years. The appellant remained in the custody for 47 days during the trial and thereafter, he was taken into the custody on 29.11.2008. However, a bail order was passed in his favour but he did not furnish any bail bonds in compliance to that order and therefore, it appears that he remained in the custody for more than two years. The appellant was the first offender and his overt act was not so grave. It is alleged that he demanded a sum of `500/- from the complainant for consuming liquor. It appears that he remained in the custody for a sufficient period and looking to his overt act, his jail sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be excessive. Looking to his custody period, there is no need to impose a separate fine, because the appellant is a poor person, otherwise he shall undergo for default sentence in lieu of payment of fine. Looking to his custody period, no further default sentence may be directed. Hence, it is a fit case where the sentence may be reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody and his fine imposed by the trial Court may also be set aside. 6. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby partly allowed. The conviction directed for the offences punishable under Sections 294 & 327 of IPC is hereby maintained but the sentence is reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody, whereas fine imposed by the trial Court is hereby set aside. 7. According to this appeal, at present the appellant is in jail and therefore, office is directed to issue a supper-session warrant forthwith so that the appellant may be released without any delay. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.