Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1219 (MP)

Suresh v. State of M. P.

2012-11-27

ALOK ARADHE

body2012
Judgment By the impugned judgment dated 6.1.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Multai in Sessions Trial No.197/1996, the appellant has been convicted under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. 2. The prosecution case is that on 13.5.1996 at about 4.30 p.m., the appellant assaulted his father namely Tulsiram, as a result of which he sustained injury. The appellant took his father to the hospital. Thereafter, the victim Tulsiram was medically examined and one fracture on parietal region of the skull was found. No other injury was found on the body of the victim namely Tulsiram. The police after completion of the investigation filed the charge-sheet for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that evidence of the eye-witnesses to the incident Babulal (PW-2), Sawla Bai (PW-3) and Dinesh (PW-4) is contrary to the medical evidence. While inviting attention of this Court to the statement of Dr. O.P. Mahore (PW-19), it was submitted that the doctor has not been able to opine that the victim died on the account of injury sustained by him or due to fall. On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent submitted that trial Court after meticulous appreciation of evidence on record has convicted the appellant which does not call for any interference. 4. I have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgment as well as the record of the trial Court. The trial Court on the basis of statement of the eyewitnesses to the incident Babulal (PW-2), Sawla Bai (PW-3) and Dinesh (PW-4) has held that the accused assaulted the victim as a result of which, he sustained injury. Dr. Mahore (PW-19) has also found one fracture on the parietal region of the skull of the victim. The findings recorded by the trial Court are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record which do not call for any interference. The only question which survives for consideration is as to what sentence has to be awarded to meet ends of justice. 5. The incident had taken place on 13.5.1996. The findings recorded by the trial Court are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record which do not call for any interference. The only question which survives for consideration is as to what sentence has to be awarded to meet ends of justice. 5. The incident had taken place on 13.5.1996. From the perusal of the statement of eye-witnesses Babulal (PW-2), Sawla Bai (PW-3) and Dinesh (PW-4) it seems that the incident had taken place at the spur of the moment. The appellant at the time of the incident was a young man aged about 26 yeas. The appellant himself took his father namely Tulsiram to the hospital. The appellant has remained in jail for a period of three months and twenty one days i.e. from 20.5.1996 to 9.9.1996. In the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the period which has elapsed, no useful purpose would be served in sending appellant back to jail, I therefore, set aside the jail sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and instead award the sentence to the appellant for a period of imprisonment already undergone by him. 6. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, the appeal is partly allowed.