Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 444 (MP)

Raoji v. State of M. P.

2019-06-25

SHAILENDRA SHUKLA

body2019
ORDER 1. Submissions were to be made on application [IA No. 4479/2019] for suspension of sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant sought to make final submissions at this stage only. He does not controvert the order of conviction, however, makes a submission on the quantum of sentence. 2. The appeal is admitted for final hearing. 3. On such request, considered the submissions. 4. The appellant has been convicted for committing offence under section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo 4 years' RI and fine amount of Rs. 10,000-00 with default imprisonment sentence by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone vide judgment dated 20.2.2019 pronounced in Sessions Trial No. 44/2018. 5. As per the case of the prosecution, on 16.4.2018 the complainant Kashiram had called guests on the occasion of engagement of his daughter. The appellant was also being is guest was present in the house of Kashiram. The appellant had been in drunken state and asked Kashiram as to what Kashiram was doing. Kashiram responded that why can't the appellant see as to what he is doing. This verbose altercation resulted in physical assault with appellant inflicting knife injury on the hand of Kashiram, who suffered fracture of his IVth Phalanx finger. The report was lodged by Kashiram. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under sections 294, 326 and 506 Part-II of IPC. The Trial Court i.e. Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone in Sessions Trial No. 44/2018 vide judgment dated 20.2.2019 has found charge only under section 326 IPC to be proved and acquitted the appellant from other charges. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken this Court through the evidence and submits that the complainant himself has also admitted that he was also in drunken state at the time of the incident. He submits that looking to the fact that the injury was caused on non vital part of the complainant as also the fact that the incident has occurred suddenly without any motive or preplanning and having occurred due to both the persons in drunken state, the sentence must be scaled out to that already undergone in jail by the appellant. 7. Considered the submissions. 8. In view of the above submissions, though the conviction has not been challenged, a perusal of the evidence also justifies the order of conviction. 7. Considered the submissions. 8. In view of the above submissions, though the conviction has not been challenged, a perusal of the evidence also justifies the order of conviction. As far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant appeared to be appropriate. The appellant had been in jail since 20.2.2019. Thus, he is in jail for 4 months at the moment. This apart the appellant was in jail during the trial period as under trial prisoner from 13.7.2018 to 4.9.2018, which is roughly 55 days. Thus, the appellant spent 5 months and 25 days approximately in jail so far. It would be appropriate to impose a punishment of six months instead of 4 years in the given circumstances with no change in the fine amount imposed. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has already deposited the fine amount. As the trial Court has directed that out of Rs. 10,000-00 of fine, Rs. 9,000-00 ordered to be paid to the complainant. This order is also affirmed. 9. Consequently this appeal on the point of quantum of sentence is partly allowed in above terms. The order regarding disposal of property as pronounced by the trial Court is also affirmed. 10. Let a copy of this order along with the record of the trial Court be sent to the trial Court for due compliance.