Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 985 (MP)

Harvind Singh v. State of M. P.

2012-10-04

N.K.GUPTA

body2012
Judgment N.K. Gupta, J.;- 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 5.7.2011 passed by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T. No. 40/2011, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 325 of I.P.C. and sentenced for 2 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, 6 months' additional rigorous imprisonment was also directed. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 31.8.2010, at about 6 p.m. in the evening, the victim Mangal Singh (P.W. 2) was going to answer the call of nature in the fields, situated at village Bila (Police Station Rajnagar, District Chhatarpur), the appellant alongwith co-accused Umakant met him in the way and asked for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for consumption of wine and for non-veg dinner. Thereafter, the appellant and his companions assaulted the victim Mangal Singh by sticks, causing him so many injuries. Other witnesses saved the complainant. The complainant went to the Police Station Rajnagar and lodged the FIR, Ex. P/2. He was sent for his medico legal examination to the Primary Health Center, Rajnagar. Dr. Vineet Sharma (P.W. 1) examined the victim Mangal Singh and gave his report, Ex. P/1. He found various lacerated wounds and abrasions along with contusions at so many places on the body of the victim Mangal Singh. He referred the victim Mangal Singh for his x-ray examination. Dr. S.K. Chourasiya (P.W. 5) examined the victim Mangal Singh radiologically at District Hospital, Chhatarpur and found a fracture of second metacarpal bone in the right hand. He gave his report, Ex. P/5. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Rajnagar, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Chhatarpur and ultimately it was transferred to the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur. 2. The appellant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea in the case. However, he has stated that he was falsely implicated in the case. 3. After considering the prosecution's evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 308 and 329 of I.P.C. but, convicted him for the offence punishable under section 325 of I.P.C. and sentenced him as mentioned above. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. 3. After considering the prosecution's evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 308 and 329 of I.P.C. but, convicted him for the offence punishable under section 325 of I.P.C. and sentenced him as mentioned above. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that that the appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality. He was the first offender. Except of a small fracture in the metacarpal bone, remaining injuries caused to the victim were simple. The appellant remained in the custody during the trial for a period of 145 days. Looking to the nature of injuries and the overt-act of the appellant, jail sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody. It is also submitted that a heavy fine was also imposed by the trial Court and the appellant has deposited the same before the trial Court. 6. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that the conviction as well as sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be appropriate. 7. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the appellant does not challenge the merits of the case. However, looking to the evidence given by the complainant, evidence of other eye witnesses, timely lodged FIR by the complainant and medical report proved by Dr. Vineet Sharma (P.W. 1) and x-ray report proved Dr. S.K. Chourasiya (P.W. 5), it appears that the appellant was rightly convicted for the offence punishable under section 325 of I.P.C. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is true that the appellant caused simple injuries to the victim, except one fracture, which was caused to a minor bone. Under such circumstances, where the appellant was the first offender and he remained in the custody for 145 days, it would be proper to reduce his jail sentence to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody because a heavy fine amount is already imposed by the trial Court. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby partly allowed. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby partly allowed. His conviction directed for the offence punishable under section 325 of I.P.C. is hereby maintained but, the sentence is reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody. There is no change in the fine amount imposed upon the appellant. The appellant is directed to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today. 9. At present, the appellant is not appearing before this Court and therefore, no order relating to his bail bonds is passed. 10. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information. Since the record of the trial Court is required in the connected Criminal Appeal No. 1872/2012, therefore, it may be kept in that appeal.