Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 38 (MP)

Radhe Shyam v. State of M. P.

2013-01-04

N.K.GUPTA

body2013
ORDER 1. The applicants were convicted for the offence punishable under section 325 read with section 34 of IPC vide judgment dated 8.6.2011 passed by the JMFC, Balaghat in Criminal case No. 578/2007 and each sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, one month’s rigorous imprisonment was also directed. The criminal appeal No. 123/2011 filed by the applicants by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the applicants have preferred the present revision. 2. The prosecution’s case, in short, is that, on 4.3.2007, the victim Gaurishankar (PW1) has lodged an FIR against the applicants that they assaulted him by sticks, causing him injuries on his nose and right leg. He was sent for his medico legal examination to Community Health Center, Lanchi. Dr. Pradeep Gedam (PW7) examined the victim Gaurishankar and gave his report, Ex. P/5. Swelling was found on the right side of his nose and one abrasion was also found on the right leg. He was also referred for his x-ray examination. Dr. D.K. Raut (PW6) examined the victim radiologically and give his report, Ex. P/4. A dislocation of right patella done was found. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Balaghat. 3. The applicants abjured their guilt. They did not take any specific plea in the case. Hence, no defence evidence was adduced. 4. After considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balaghat convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned above, whereas, appeal filed by the applicants was dismissed by the learned First Additioinal Sessions Judge, Balaghat vide judgment dated 29.8.2012. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that due to the concurrent opinion of both the Courts below, there is nothing to say about the conviction but, the applicants were the first offenders and they could be given a sympathetic attitude because no bony injury was found to the victim on the nose and he received only two injuries. It is further submitted that some fine may be imposed upon the applicants. They remained in the custody since 29.10.2010 and therefore, they remained in the jail for more than two months. Looking to their custody period, their sentence may be reduced. 7. It is further submitted that some fine may be imposed upon the applicants. They remained in the custody since 29.10.2010 and therefore, they remained in the jail for more than two months. Looking to their custody period, their sentence may be reduced. 7. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that there is no basis by which any interference can be made in the conviction directed by the trial Court. The trial Court has directed 6 month’s rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 325 read with section 34 of IPC. The applicants are the first offenders and as per allegations, each of them had assaulted the victim for once. They remained in the custody for more than two months and therefore, looking to their custody period, their jail sentence may be reduced to the period, which they have already undergone in the custody by enhancement of some fine. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, revision petition filed by the applicants is hereby partly allowed. Conviction for the offence punishable under section 325 read with section 34 of IPC is hereby maintained but, the sentence is reduced to the period, which they have already undergone in the custody. However, fine is enhanced from a sum of Rs. 500/- to a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The applicants are directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today. In default of payment of fine, each of them shall undergo for six months regorous imprisonment. If fine is deposited then, a sum of Rs. 4,000/- be given to the victim Gaurishankar, by way of a compensation. 9. Office is directed to arrange for issuance of supersession warrant accordingly, so that the applicants may be released from the jail on deposit of the fine amount. 10. A copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below along with their records for information and necessary compliance.