Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1057 (MP)

Sunil v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2016-11-22

H.P.SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : H.P. Singh, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.08.2005 passed in Session Trial No.206/2004 by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Harda, where the present appellant stood convicted under Section 324 of the IPC. Following his conviction, he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment for two months. 2. In nutshell, the case of prosecution is that on 04.03.2004, at about 9:00 p.m., appellant and other co-accused persons namely, Raju @ Rajendra, Udaya @ Uday Singh, Ajay Singh and Vinod were joking and abusing each other. On taking objection by the brother-in-law of complainant, Braj Mohan (PW-1), they started abusing him, thereafter, complainant reached there. Appellant-Sunil inflicted grievous penetrated wound to the complainant, Braj Mohan. Appellant and other co-accused persons have also caused injury to the mother of the complainant and other persons. On the report of the complainant, Braj Mohan, Crime No.25/2004 was registered in Police Station Rahatgaon, District Harda. 3. During investigation, injured persons were medically examined. Statement of the witnesses were taken and after completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Magistrate against the appellant and four other persons. Case was committed to the Sessions Court as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The case was made over to the trial Court. The learned trial Court framed charges under Section 147, 148, 294, 307, 307/149, 324, 324/149, 323, 323/149 of the IPC. Contents of the charges were read over and explained to the appellant and other co-accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Thereafter, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove its case against the accused persons. On completion of recording of evidence, the learned trial Court examined the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. to which they denied veracity of all the prosecution evidence and examined one witness in support of their defence. Their case is of total denial and that they were falsely implicated in this case. 5. On completion of recording of evidence, the learned trial Court examined the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. to which they denied veracity of all the prosecution evidence and examined one witness in support of their defence. Their case is of total denial and that they were falsely implicated in this case. 5. The learned trial Court upon hearing the parties, on going through the evidence of the witnesses and exhibited documents and material available before it, acquitted the accused Raju @ Rajendra, Udaya @ Uday Singh, Ajay Singh and Vinod and convicted the appellant- Sunil and sentenced him by the judgment and order as stated supra. 6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred this instant appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has already suffered a period of more than ¾th of his sentence and argued that it would be just and proper if the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period he had already undergone. He has submitted that fine imposed on appellant has already been deposited by receipt No.26, Book No.10465 dated 29.08.2005 before the trial Court. 8. I have gone through the evidence on record and thereafter I arrived at the final conclusion that the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 324 of the IPC upon proper appreciation of evidence on record, hence no interference on conviction by this Court is called for. 9. Now, I will consider the sentence part of the impugned judgment in the light of the argument advanced before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant. No doubt, the appellant has been experiencing the trauma of conviction for about 12 years. The record reveals that the appellant has so far suffered jail sentence of more than 9 months. As per record, at the time of the alleged incident, the appellant was about 24 years old. It is said that he has been shouldering the responsibility of maintaining his family. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no useful purpose will be served if the jail sentence, as imposed by the Courts below would be maintained. As per record, at the time of the alleged incident, the appellant was about 24 years old. It is said that he has been shouldering the responsibility of maintaining his family. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no useful purpose will be served if the jail sentence, as imposed by the Courts below would be maintained. To serve the ends of justice, it would be just and proper if the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period he had already undergone. 10. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and conviction as recorded by the trial Court under Section 324 of the IPC is affirmed. However, the sentence is reduced to the period, the appellant had already undergone. The fine has already been deposited. 11. In the afore stated terms, this appeal is finally disposed off.