Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 33 (MP)

Suan v. State of M. P.

2013-01-04

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2013
ORDER Per U.C. Maheshwari, J. 1. The appellant/accused has preferred this appeal under section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.8.1997 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge Chhatarpur, in Sessions Trial No. 196/93, convicting and sentencing him under section 324 of I.P.C. for R.I. one year with fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of depositing the fine amount, further one month additional R.I. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that, on date 25.8.1993 the victim Nathuram Sharma accompanied with Adhiyan Singh, B.K. Naik and C.L. Goutam while returning from the Block Development Office visited the house of B.K. Naik, and when they were returning from such house, at the same time on the way the appellant Suan Dhimar, a suspended peon of Block Development Office Baxwaha, under the influence of liquor intercepted the victim Nathuram and with intention to cause his death gave a blow of knife on him on which victim sustained the injuries on his left palm and the blood was profused, in continuation, second blow of knife was given by the appellant resultantly victim also sustained the injury on his left leg and fell down. Thereafter the appellant fled away. The victim lodged the report to the Police Station Baxwaha Ex.P.10, on which he was sent to the hospital where after carrying out the medical examination by Dr. Ashok Bodake (MW-6), his MLC report (Ex.P8) was prepared. The appellant was arrested. The interrogatory statements of the witnesses were recorded. On completion of the investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence under section 307 of I.P.C. 3. After committing the case to the Sessions Court on evaluation of the charge-sheet, a charge of section 307 of I.P.C. was framed against the appellant. He abjured the guilt on which, the trial was held. On appreciation of the evidence after extending acquittal from the offence of section 307 of I.P.C., he was convicted and sentenced under section 324 of I.P.C. as stated above on which the appellant has come to this Court with this appeal. 4. He abjured the guilt on which, the trial was held. On appreciation of the evidence after extending acquittal from the offence of section 307 of I.P.C., he was convicted and sentenced under section 324 of I.P.C. as stated above on which the appellant has come to this Court with this appeal. 4. Shri B.J. Chourasia, learned appearing counsel of the appellant after taking me through the record of the trial Court without challenging any findings of the impugned judgment holding conviction of the appellant under the aforesaid section has made his limited prayer to reduce the awarded jail sentence upto the period for which he has already suffered the judicial custody during trial between 25.8.1993 to 10.9.1993 on which date he was released on bail, by enhancing the amount of fine under the discretion of the Court and prayed to dispose of the appeal accordingly. 5. On the other hand, State counsel by responding the aforesaid arguments said that looking to the nature of the alleged act committed by the appellant with the victim, his departmental official, the appellant does not deserve to adopt any lenient view even for reduction of the awarded jail sentence. According to him, the impugned conviction and sentence being based on proper appreciation of the evidence, does not require any interference at this stage and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view their arguments, I have examined the matter to find out the probability of extending the acquittal to the appellant so also to find out the circumstances for extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Although, such prayer has not been made by the appellant’s counsel but under the settled proposition of law, I deem fit to find out the aforesaid circumstances in the matter. 7. After perusing the evidence led by the prosecution in the available circumstances of the matter, I have not found any infirmity, illegality or perversity in appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court holding conviction against the appellant under section 324 of IPC. In such premises, I have not found any circumstance to extend the acquittal to the appellant. Consequently, alleged conviction is hereby affirmed. It is also apparent that due to some departmental proceedings against the appellant at the instance of the complainant, the appellant has committed such act with such official. In such premises, I have not found any circumstance to extend the acquittal to the appellant. Consequently, alleged conviction is hereby affirmed. It is also apparent that due to some departmental proceedings against the appellant at the instance of the complainant, the appellant has committed such act with such official. So, in such premises, I have not found any circumstances in the matter to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant. 8. So far as the prayer of the appellant’s counsel for reduction of the jail sentence is concerned,I have found some substance in it. It is apparent that the appellant was the age of 22 years on the date of the alleged incident and subsequent to date of arrest and before releasing him on bail, he had suffered 15 days in the judicial custody and it appears from the submissions of the appellant’s counsel that he is only bread winner in his family and in last near about 16 years, he has settled with his family and in such premises, on affirming the awarded jail sentence, if he is sent to jail for facing the remaining jail sentence, then in comparison of the appellant his family has to suffer lot. Besides this, looking to the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim that one small incised wound on the palm and another incised wound on the left leg, I deem fit to reduce the jail sentence from one year R.I. to the aforesaid period for which he has already undergone by enhancing the fine amount from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 1,250/- with a direction to give Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One thousand) to the victim Nathuram to sub-serve the justice with him also. The same is ordered. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, by affirming the conviction of the appellant under section 324 of I.P.C., his awarded jail Sentence is reduced from one year R.I. to the aforesaid period of 15 days, for which he has already suffered during the pendency of the trial in judicial custody by enhancing the amount of fine from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 1,250/-. The enhanced fine amount is to be deposited by the appellant within 90 days from today failing which, he has to suffer further three months R.I. 10. On depositing the enhanced fine amount, out of the entire fine amount, Rs. 250/- to Rs. 1,250/-. The enhanced fine amount is to be deposited by the appellant within 90 days from today failing which, he has to suffer further three months R.I. 10. On depositing the enhanced fine amount, out of the entire fine amount, Rs. 1,000/- be given to the complainant-Nathuram by calling him through summons in the trial Court. The bail bond of the appellant are hereby discharged. Till the aforesaid extent, the impugned judgment is modified while the other findings of the same are affirmed. 11. Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.