Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 890 (MP)

Jahar Singh v. State of M. P.

2016-10-04

N.K.GUPTA

body2016
ORDER 1. The applicant has been convicted of offence under section 324 of IPC and sentenced to six months RI with fine of Rs.500/- vide judgment dated 30.6.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case No.18086/2010. In Criminal Appeal No.265/2014 vide judgment dated 19.8.2014 passed by the IX Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, the appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 2. The facts of the case in short are that on 25.12.2010 a quarrel took place between the complainant Balveer Singh and the applicant at Pinto Park, Gwalior and in that quarrel it is alleged that the applicant assaulted the complainant with a sharp cutting weapon (Karchhula) for two times. An FIR was lodged and after due investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 3. The applicant abjured his guilt. He took a plea that he was falsely implicated in the case. However, no defence evidence was adduced. 4. The trial Court convicted the applicant for offence under section 324 of IPC and sentenced to six months RI with fine of Rs.500/-, whereas the appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. If evidence of witnesses, Balveer Singh (PW1) and Awtar Singh (PW4) is considered along with timely lodged FIR (Exhibit P-1) which is duly proved by Head Constable Bhanu Pratap (PW2) and medical report (Exhibit P-5) prepared by Dr. K.N. Sharma (PW5), then it would be apparent that the applicant caused two injuries to the victim. One was the incised wound and second was the contusion on the neck. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements of eye witnesses and the victim, hence, there is no reason to disturb the findings recorded by the Courts below. On the basis of facts, both the Courts below have rightly convicted the applicant under section 324 of IPC. 7. So far as the sentence is concerned, it appears that the applicant remained in custody for a month during the pendency of revision initially and thereafter he is in custody since 14.9.2016. He was the first offender and the quarrel took place all of a sudden, it was not a pre-planned attempt of the applicant. He is a youth of 25 years of age and, therefore, it was not appropriate to impose the jail sentence upon him. He was the first offender and the quarrel took place all of a sudden, it was not a pre-planned attempt of the applicant. He is a youth of 25 years of age and, therefore, it was not appropriate to impose the jail sentence upon him. Looking to the custody period of the applicant, it would be appropriate that his jail sentence may be reduced to the period for which he was remained in jail by enhancing the fine amount. 8. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the present revision is hereby disposed off with the direction that conviction of the applicant under section 324 of IPC is hereby confirmed but jail sentence is reduced to the period for which he has already undergone in the custody. However, fine amount is enhanced from a sum of Rs.500/- to a sum of Rs.5,000/-. If the applicant has already deposited a sum of Rs.500/- then it shall be adjusted while depositing the fine amount before trial Court. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months. 9. A copy of the order be sent to the Courts below along with their respective records for information. R. K. Bhardwaj for applicant; J. M. Sahani, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.