Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 226 (MP)

Ramjilal Pal v. State of M. P.

2013-02-21

BRIJ KISHORE DUBE

body2013
JUDGMENT : Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16/12/11 passed in Sessions Trial No.06 of 2011 (State of M.P. Vs. Ramjilal Pal) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore, District Shivpuri, convicting the appellant under Section 307 of IPC and thereby sentenced him to suffer five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/and in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for six months, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The facts of the case have been detailed in the impugned judgment by the learned Trial Court and, therefore, this Court does not want to repeat the same overall again. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submits that the appellant does not wish to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court. It is further submitted that the appellant serving the sentence since 26/10/2010 and, therefore, served about 02 years 03 months 25 days sentence without including the remission period, the fine amount has already been deposited and there is no previous criminal conduct of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant Cr. A. 67 of 2012 prays for reduction of jail sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record found guilt of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC. In view of the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court for convicting the appellant to be trustworthy, this Court does not want to deviate from the same. 6. As before this Court, the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court against the appellant under Section 307 of IPC has not been challenged by the appellant, hence, the aforesaid finding is hereby affirmed. 7. With regard to the sentence awarded is concerned, the appellant has been sentenced by the learned Trial Court as stated hereinabove. No previous criminal conduct of the appellant has been proved by the prosecution. The appellant is under detention since 26/10/2010, i.e., 02 years 03 months 25 days without including the remission period. 7. With regard to the sentence awarded is concerned, the appellant has been sentenced by the learned Trial Court as stated hereinabove. No previous criminal conduct of the appellant has been proved by the prosecution. The appellant is under detention since 26/10/2010, i.e., 02 years 03 months 25 days without including the remission period. Under these circumstances, the ends of justice would be subserved, if the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him with fine of Rs.1,000/and in default of payment of fine, additional six months rigorous imprisonment. 8. Consequently, this appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant passed by the learned Trial Court under Section 307 of IPC is hereby affirmed but, the sentence is set aside and instead thereof, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in jail with fine of Rs.1,000/and in default of payment of fine, additional six months rigorous imprisonment. The appellant is in jail, therefore, he be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. 9. With the modification in sentence, the appeal is disposed of finally. 10. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance.