Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 362 (MP)

Kamal Singh v. State of M. P.

2015-03-30

N.K.GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : N.K. Gupta, J. 1. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally. 2. Applicants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 147, 323 read with Section 149, 324read with Section 149 and under Section 325 read with Section 149 and sentenced to one month's RI with a fine of Rs. 200/-, one years' RI with a fine of Rs. 500/-, three months' RI with a fine of Rs. 300/- and one month's RI with a fine of Rs. 200/- vide judgment dated 11.06.2004 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashok Nagar in Criminal Case No. 282/2004. In Criminal Appeal No. 144/2004 vide judgment dated 24.05.2006, I Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar acquitted the applicants of the charge of Section147 of IPC and therefore conviction was also directed for the offence under Section 323 read with Section34 of IPC, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentence was also reduced. For offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC only fine amount was imposed whereas for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC jail sentence for the period for which they remained in custody was imposed and a fine of Rs. 500/- was also imposed by the appellate court, however, a wrong certificate under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. was prepared by the trial court that applicant remained in custody for 250 days and therefore, appellate court passed such a sentence in the judgment. But when the mistake was informed to the appellate court then vide modification order dated 07.08.2006 in MJC No. 117/2006 the appellate court took the applicants into custody so that they should be sent to jail for those 250 days, according to the certificate under Section428 of Cr.P.C. 3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the applicants have preferred the present revision. 4. Facts of the case, in short, are that incident took place on 05.04.1982 whereby the applicants had assaulted various victims by various weapons. Out of the victims, Dinesh Kumar sustained a fracture on his scapula bone. 5. After completion of trial, the trial court has convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned above whereas the appellate court in appeal maintained the conviction of various offences with the help of Section 34 of IPC and reduced the sentence. Out of the victims, Dinesh Kumar sustained a fracture on his scapula bone. 5. After completion of trial, the trial court has convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned above whereas the appellate court in appeal maintained the conviction of various offences with the help of Section 34 of IPC and reduced the sentence. However, vide order dated 07.08.2006, the applicants were directed to remain in custody for 250 days for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34of IPC. 6. During pendency of this revision, applicants Kamal Singh and Lakhan Singh have expired and therefore present revision is pending against applicant Surendra Singh only. Since a counter revision No. 518/2006 was filed by the victim for enhancement of sentence for the offence under Section 325 read with Section34 of IPC, therefore, learned counsel Shri Vikrant Sharma for the applicant of that case was also permitted to argue the matter in the present case and I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Since Kamal Singh and Lakhan Singh have expired and revision filed against them as well as revision filed by them have turned infructuous, therefore, matter is to be heard only for applicant Surendra Singh. Revisions are filed because I Additional Sessions Judge, Guna passed an order dated 07.08.2006. It appears that on the basis of a certificate under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. the appellate court reduced the sentence of applicant Surendra Singh to the period for which he remained in the custody whereas he did not remain in the custody. 8. It appears that after passing of order dated 07.08.2006, applicant Surendra Singh was taken into custody and his sentence was suspended again vide order dated 18.08.2006 by this Court and therefore, now it is apparent that applicant Surendra Singh remained in custody for approximately 12-13 days. The trial court has mentioned in its judgment that the incident took place in the year 1982 and the accused persons have suffered a lot during the pendency of the criminal case. Thereafter, appeal was filed and this revision was also filed. Under these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to send applicant Surendra Singh to jail to undergo for those 250 days' sentence. It would be appropriate that fine imposed upon him may be enhanced. 9. Consequently, revision filed by applicant Surendra Singh is hereby partly allowed. His conviction for various offences is hereby maintained. Under these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to send applicant Surendra Singh to jail to undergo for those 250 days' sentence. It would be appropriate that fine imposed upon him may be enhanced. 9. Consequently, revision filed by applicant Surendra Singh is hereby partly allowed. His conviction for various offences is hereby maintained. Sentence of offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 and under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC is also maintained as directed by the appellate court. However, his sentence for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC is reduced to the period for which he remained in custody during the pendency of this revision but fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2,500/-. He is directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial court within a period of two months from today, failing which he shall undergo for one month's RI. If fine is deposited, an amount of Rs. 1,000/- be provided to the victim Dinesh Kumar who sustained fracture. 10. Applicant Surendra Singh is on bail. His presence is no more required before this Court, hence, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. 11. Copy of this order be sent to the court below alongwith their respective records for information and compliance. 12. It is directed that if fine is not deposited within the stipulated period then it should be recovered as per the provisions of Section 68 of IPC.