Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1203 (MP)

Uttam Beldar v. State of M. P.

2013-10-03

G.S.Solanki

body2013
ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.8.2011 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in S.T. No.296/2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 326 of I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he has to suffer further R.I. for three months. 2. Facts, in short, are that on 14.9.2006, at about 11.15 A.M., complainant Vineet Gupta was going to Palika Bazar, Stana. Appellant Uttam Beldar and co-accused Sallu Yadav intercepted him, abused him and appellant Uttam Beldar took out a knife and assaulted him by the same. He sustained injury on his left hand. Appellant again gave a blow of knife on his stomach and another on back side. Therefore, he fell down there and the incident was witnessed by Manoj Tandon and Gudda Bagari. Then, complainant lodged the report at P.S. Nagod. He has been sent to civil Hospital, Nagod, from where he has been referred for treatment to district Hospital, Satna. 3. Appellant alongwith co-accused Sallu Yadav have been arrested. After usual investigation, they have been charge sheeted before Judicial Magistrate, Satna, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge made over the case to the trial Court. Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge under sections 341, 294 and 307 of I.P.C. against the appellant. 4. Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. On appreciation of evidence on record, though the trial Court acquitted the appellant from the charges under sections 341, 294 and 307 of the I.P.C., however, he has been sentenced under section 326 of I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove, hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that appellant and complainant Vineet Gupta have already entered into a compromise. The compromise petition has been duly verified by Asst. Jail Superintendent, Sub Jail, Nagod and the same has been sent by the Jailer to this Court. He further submitted that counsel of the complainant is also present in the Court. He conceded the aforesaid fact. He further submitted that though offence under section 326 of I.P.C. is not compoundable, but he prays for considering the fact of this compromise at the time of passing the sentence. He further submitted that counsel of the complainant is also present in the Court. He conceded the aforesaid fact. He further submitted that though offence under section 326 of I.P.C. is not compoundable, but he prays for considering the fact of this compromise at the time of passing the sentence. He further submitted that appellant has already suffered the jail sentence of about 2 and 1/2 years, therefore, ends of justice would be met, if his jail sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him and fine, which has already been deposited. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has supported the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. 7. I have perused the record, wherein an application under section 320 of CrPC has been forwarded by the Asst. Jail Superintendent, Sub Jail, Nagod after verification of the photograph of complainant Vineet Gupta. His counsel is also present before this Court. He also conceded the aforesaid fact that complainant Vineet Gupta has entered into a compromise with the appellant. 8. In these circumstances, it is proved on record that complainant Vineet Gupta and appellant have entered into a compromise. Since the offence under section 326 of I.P.C. is not compoundable, this fact of compromise can be considered at the time of passing the sentence. Since the appellant has already suffered jail sentence of 2 and 1/2 years and considering the fact of compromise that the complainant and appellant resolved their dispute out of the Court, they want to live peacefully. In these circumstances, the ends of justice would be met, if the jail sentence of the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him, i.e., 2 and 1/2 years. 9. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. The conviction recorded under section 326 of I.P.C. is hereby affirmed. Jail sentence of appellant, in the light of compromise is reduced to the period already undergone by him, i.e., 2 and 1/2 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- , which has already been deposited. 10. Appellant is in jail. He is directed to be sent back to the jail alongwith the same escort with the direction that appellant be released forth with, if he is not required in any other case. 11. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment for compliance and necessary action. ...........