Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 35 (MP)

Siddharth v. State of M. P.

2013-01-04

N.K.GUPTA

body2013
ORDER 1. The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC vide judgment dated 8.7.2011 passed by the JMFC, Sagar in Criminal case No. 3765/2008 and sentenced for 1 year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, 15 days’ simple imprisonment was also directed. The appeal filed by the applicant before the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar was dismissed vide judgment dated 18.10.2012 being barred by limitation. In the present revision, the applicant has challenged both the orders relating to his conviction. 2. The prosecution’s case, in short, is that, it is alleged against the applicant that he assaulted the victim Pappu Raikwar (P.W.5) on 14.7.2003 by a Baka (a sharp cutting weapon) at Subedar ward, Sagar. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar and ultimately, it was transferred to the JMFC concerned. 3.The applicant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea in the case and therefore, no defence evidence was adduced. 4. After considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above, whereas, appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed by the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar vide judgment dated 18.10.2012 being barred by limitation. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Looking to the evidence given by the complainant as well as the eye witnesses alongwith the medical evidence and FIR, it is apparent that the applicant has committed the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC and therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted him for that offence. 7. So far as the sentence is concerned, the applicant was the first offender, who faced the trial, appeal and revision for the last 4 years. He remained in the custody for 4½ months. Under such cirumstances, his sentence may be reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody by enhancement of some fine. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, revision petition filed by the applicant is hereby partly allowed. The conviction directed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC is hereby maintained but, sentence is reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody. However, fine is enhanced from a sum of Rs. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, revision petition filed by the applicant is hereby partly allowed. The conviction directed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC is hereby maintained but, sentence is reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody. However, fine is enhanced from a sum of Rs. 500/- to a sum of Rs. 4,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the applicant shall undergo for six months rigorous imprisonment, in addition. If fine is deposited then, a sum of Rs. 2,500/- be given to the victim Pappu Raikwar S/o Shri Baijnath Raikwar, R/o Purvayau, Police Station Kotwali, District Sagar, by way of a compensation. 9. Offce is directed to arrange for issuance of supersession warrant accordingly, so that the applicant may be released from the jail, if he deposits the fine amount before the jail authorities or the trial Court. 10. A copy of the order be sent to both the Court below along with their records for information and necessary compliance.