Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 382 (MP)

Nanka Bhilala v. State of M. P.

2013-03-20

G.D.Saxena, S.K.Gangele

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been submitted by the accused/appellant challenging the judgment dated 17th July, 2004 in Sessions Trial No. 21/04 recorded by the Sessions Judge, Guna (M.P.), convicting thereby the accused/appellant for commission of offence punishable under section 307 of IPC read with section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and one year’s RI, respectively. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. In short, the prosecution case is that on 25th October, 2003 at 6.30 p.m., when Kanya (PW4), the son of the complainant was coming back to his residence after making purchase from the shop, on the way, accused met him. The accused abused him and when the victim asked him for not using such language, he was dealt with a blow by means of Dhariya causing injuries on his head and face. After receiving injuries, the injured fell down and became unconscious. The complainant tried to intervene in the matter, but the accused after injuring his son fled away from the spot. On hearing the shouts, the villagers collected on the spot. Accordingly, the incident was reported to the police station, Sirsi vide report (Ex. P/3), on the basis of which Crime No. 47/03 was registered against the accused for commission of offence under sections 307 and 294 of IPC . The injured was sent to the hospital for medical examination by the IO Mahesh Sharma (PW 10). The spot-map vide Ex. P/6 was prepared. During investigation, blood stained and simple soils were collected and seized vide Ex. P/7. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested vide memo Ex. P/8 and the alleged weapon was seized from his possession vide Ex. P/10. The seized weapon along with other articles were then sent for chemical examintion. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the criminal Court. After committal, the trial was conducted and after trial the learned trial Judge convicted the accused-appellant, as mentioned above, hence, this appeal. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that he does not wish to challenge the conviction of the appellant for the alleged offences but he confined his argument only on the quantum of sentence. It is submitted that the accused has undergone the term of detention of more than ten years. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that he does not wish to challenge the conviction of the appellant for the alleged offences but he confined his argument only on the quantum of sentence. It is submitted that the accused has undergone the term of detention of more than ten years. Placing reliance on the decisions in the cases of Mansoor v. State of M.P. [1979(I) MPWN 103] and Narayan Singh Nathu Singh v. Natarwar Lal Hari Lal Thakkar and another reported in 1982 CrLR 35 (SC), learned counsel requests that the sentences awarded to the appellant under the impugned judgment by the trial Court may be modified and reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. 4. On perusal of the record of the trial Court and the record of pending appeal of this Court, it appears that appellant prior to his conviction and sentence has remained in judicial custody for the period from 28.10.2003 till the date of judgment i.e. 17.8.2004. After preferring appeal to this Court, he was not granted suspension and has been undergoing sentence till date. So, as per the record of the trial Court, the appellant has suffered sentence of imprisonment for a period of more than 12 years including the period of remission. 5. Looking to the considerable period passed in trial of the case and pendency of appeal and further in the light of the decisions in the cases of Mansoor (supra) and Narayan Singh Nathu Singh (supra), the sentences of the appellant for the alleged offences are reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. 6. In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 307 of IPC read with section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act is hereby maintained but his sentences are modified and reduced to the period of undergone jail sentence for the alleged offences. The appellant is in custody. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not warranted in any other criminal matter.