Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 803 (MP)

Kamaluddin v. State of M. P.

2013-07-15

S.R.Waghmare

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This revision petition has been filed under section 397 r/w S.401 of the CrPC being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.6.2012 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Criminal Appeal No.151/2013, whereby the petitioner was convicted for offence under section 324 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo six months R.I. with fine of Rs.200/-. 2. Brief facts necessary for elucidation are that on the date of incident, complainant Ajhar went of the police station and lodged a report against his uncle Kamaluddin (present petitioner) that from his house the pumping motor was thrown by his uncle and when he enquired as why he did so, he abused him in filthy language and asked him to stop doing so. The petitioner assaulted the complainant by knife due to which complainant sustained grievous injuries. Upon the complaint of the complainant, case was registered against the petitioner. After framing of charge and recording of evidence, petitioner was convicted. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the conviction is contrary to the principles of law. The Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence and there are material omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. However, the prosecution has been unable to prove the offence under section 324 of the IPC. Counsel also stated that the petitioner has undergone custodial sentence of more than one month. 4. Counsel prayed that the revision deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside. In alternate counsel has prayed that if the Court is satisfied regarding the conviction the custodial sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. 5. Counsel for the State has opposed the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and stated that there is no previous criminal record against the petitioner. Counsel submitted that there is concurrent finding against the petitioner and the judgment of the appellate Court is in accordance with law and does not require any interference and the revision filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 6. On considering the above submissions, I find that the impugned order is based on valid and cogent reasons and proper marshalling of evidence and no infirmity can be found with the impugned judgment of the trial Court or the appellate Court. I have no hesitation in upholding the conviction of the accused/petitioner for offence under section 324 of the IPC. On considering the above submissions, I find that the impugned order is based on valid and cogent reasons and proper marshalling of evidence and no infirmity can be found with the impugned judgment of the trial Court or the appellate Court. I have no hesitation in upholding the conviction of the accused/petitioner for offence under section 324 of the IPC. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is aged 45 years and the fact that he has undergone some of the custodial sentence, the alternate prayer of the counsel for the petitioner being limited and reasonable is allowed in the interest of justice. The custodial sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine amount is further raised by Rs.3,000/-; which shall be deposited by the accused/petitioner in the trial Court and paid to the complainant Ajhar within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. On failure to pay the fine within the stipulated period and the petitioner shall undergo the remaining sentence as directed by the lower Court. 7. With the aforesaid modification the revision is partly allowed to the extent herein above indicated. 8. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned lower Court for compliance.