Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1184 (MP)

Gendalal v. State of M. P.

2012-11-20

ALOK ARADHE

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant No. 1 has been convicted for offences under sections 324 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas the appellants No. 2 to 4 have been convicted for offence under section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant No. 1 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months for offences under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two and half years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of amount of fine, the aforesaid appellants to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. 2. According to the prosecution case, on 8.4.1994 at 7.30 p.m., the appellants assaulted the complainant Raju (PW-7) with rod and lathis, as a result he sustained grievous injuries. The police after investigation filed the charge-sheet against the appellants for offences under sections 341, 294, 506, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted the appellants for the offences as stated supra. 3. The trial Court on the basis of statement of the complainant Raju (PW-7) and Dr. S.K. Jain (PW-8) held that the complainant sustained injuries in the aforesaid incident. Accordingly, the appellant No.1 was found guilty of offence under sections 324 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the remaining accused were found guilty for commission of offence under section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. I have gone through the statement of the witnesses as well as the record of the case. The finding recorded by the trial Court that the complainant sustained injuries in the incident is based on the statement of complainant Raju (PW-7) and Dr. S.K. Jain (PW-8) as well as the medical report. The aforesaid finding is based on material available on record. Therefore, no case for interference with the finding recorded by the trial Court is made out. Now the only question which arises for consideration is with regard to sentence which has been awarded to the appellants to meet ends of justice. 5. The incident has taken place on 8.4.1994. The aforesaid finding is based on material available on record. Therefore, no case for interference with the finding recorded by the trial Court is made out. Now the only question which arises for consideration is with regard to sentence which has been awarded to the appellants to meet ends of justice. 5. The incident has taken place on 8.4.1994. The appellants have remained in jail for a period from 11.4.1994 till 17.6.1994 i.e. for a period of two months and seven days. There is nothing to suggest that the appellants have any criminal background. On due consideration and circumstances of the case and also considering the period of time which has elapsed, I set aside the sentence awarded to the appellants under section 324 as well as section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and instead award the sentence for a period already undergone by them. However, the amount of fine is enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- each to Rs. 3,000/- each, in default of payment of amount of fine, the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. It is further directed that the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.15,000/- shall be paid to the complainant Raju (PW-7) by way of compensation. The appellants shall deposit the enhanced amount of fine within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment passed today. Since the appellants are on bail, therefore, on their depositing the enhanced amount of fine, their bail bonds be discharged. 6. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, the appeal is partly allowed.