Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 62 (MP)

Krishna v. State of M. P.

2017-01-12

JARAT KUMAR JAIN

body2017
ORDER 1. This revision is filed under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 22.11.2016 passed by Second ASJ, Dhar in Criminal Appeal No.388/2015, whereby affirmed the conviction under section 324 of IPC and sentence of 6 months' RI and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, further one month's RI passed by JMFC, Dhar in Criminal Case No.944/2012. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 10.4.2012 at 10.25 a.m. complainant Bhanwarsingh was brought to the District Hospital, Dhar for treatment. In this regard, information has been sent to the Police Station Dhar. Then a Crime No.39/2012 under sections 294, 323, 324 and 506 of IPC and under section 25 of the Arms Act has been registered against the applicant and co-accused Laxminarayan and Ayodhyabai. During investigation, it was found that the applicant has caused the injury with sword on the palm of left hand of the complainant and co-accused Ayodhyabai assaulted the complainant with Lathi on his waste and accused persons have also threatened to kill the complainant. After investigation, final report has been filed. The applicant along with other co-accused were tried for the charge under sections 294, 324 and 506 Part-II of IPC and under section 25 (1-B) (b) of the Arms Act. They have abjured the guilt. The prosecution has produced 10 witnesses, however, the applicant has not examined any witness in defence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Magistrate acquitted the accused Laxminarayan and Ayodhyabai from the charge under sections 294 and 506 Part-II of IPC and acquitted the present applicant Krishna from the charge under sections 294 and 506 Part-II of IPC and under section 25 (1-B) (b) of the Arms Act. However, applicant Krishna held guilty for the offence under section 324 of IPC and Ayodhyabai held guilty for the offence under section 323 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo 6 months' RI and fine of Rs.500-00; with default clause and 3 months' RI and fine of Rs.500-00; with default clause, respectively. Being aggrieved, they have filed the appeal. Learned Second ASJ, Dhar allowed the appeal of co-accused Ayodhyabai and acquitted her from the charge under section 323 of IPC; whereas dismissed the appeal of applicant Krishna and affirmed the conviction as well as the sentence passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed this revision. Being aggrieved, they have filed the appeal. Learned Second ASJ, Dhar allowed the appeal of co-accused Ayodhyabai and acquitted her from the charge under section 323 of IPC; whereas dismissed the appeal of applicant Krishna and affirmed the conviction as well as the sentence passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant does not wish to challenge the conviction recorded by the Courts below. However, the applicant is a first offender and the incident is taken place on a trivial issue. The applicant has already suffered the jail sentence for one month and twenty days. Hence, the jail sentence may be reduced up to the period already undergone and the fine may be enhanced reasonably. 4. Learned Government Advocate supports the conviction and sentence and prays for dismissal of the revision. 5. Perused the record. 6. Bhanwarsingh (PW-1) deposed that on the date of incident when he reached to his agricultural land, he found that a buffalo of applicant was tied there. He told the applicant to remove his buffalo from there, then the applicant started abusing him and thereafter has caused the injury with sword on left palm of the complainant Bhanwarsingh. Thereafter he was taken to District Hospital, Dhar and lodged the report. His evidence is duly corroborated by the medical evidence and there is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve him. Thus, the conviction of the applicant under section 324 of IPC is well founded. Hence, it is hereby affirmed. 7. Now I have considered the submissions in regard to sentence; firstly the nature and size of the injury. Dr. B.R. Bansal (PW-7) deposed that he has examined Bhanwarsingh and found incised wound 8 × 2 × 1 c.m. on his left palm. With the aforesaid, it is apparent that the injury has been caused on non-vital part of the body. The applicant is a first offender not having any criminal antecedents and the incident is taken place on a trivial issue. Considering these facts, I am of the view that 2 months' jail sentence is appropriate sentence for the offence. Hence, the jail sentence is reduced from 6 months to “2 months'” and the fine sentence is enhanced from Rs.500/- to “Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the applicant has to suffer further imprisonment of 2 months. 8. Considering these facts, I am of the view that 2 months' jail sentence is appropriate sentence for the offence. Hence, the jail sentence is reduced from 6 months to “2 months'” and the fine sentence is enhanced from Rs.500/- to “Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the applicant has to suffer further imprisonment of 2 months. 8. The whole or any part of fine recovered be paid to the victim Bhanwarsingh s/o Ghisaji as compensation. 9. Office is directed to prepare supersession warrant and sent the same to concerned jail for compliance. 10. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court along with the record forthwith. 11. The revision is disposed of as indicated above.