Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 573 (MP)

Kamal v. State of M. P.

2019-08-08

VIRENDER SINGH

body2019
ORDER 1. The case is listed for final hearing at motion stage therefore, final arguments are heard. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.2.2014, Inspector D.S. Baghel of Police Station, Juni, Indore received an information from Gujar Hospital, Indore that an injured person is admitted in the hospital, who has sustained gun shot injury. Inspector D.S. Baghel reached the hospital, recorded Dehati Nalshi on the instigation of injured Jagdish, who revealed that one with intent to kill him, Narendra Verma has fired gun shot, which hit on his thigh. On the basis of Dehati Nalshi, Crime No. 96/2014 was registered at police Station. The police investigated the case. Narendra Verma was taken into custody. On inquiry, he revealed that Kamal had provided him the pistol used in the fire on the complainant. The police arrested the appellant Kamal and recovered pistol and live cartridge from his possession and sent them to know as to whether any shot was fired by the same recently. After completing other usual investigations and seeking permission from the District Magistrate, the police filed charge sheet against both the accused under section 307, 307/34 and 25(1B) (a) and 27 of the Arms Act,1959. 3. Accused persons abjured the guilt. 4. After the trial, co-accused Narendra Verma was acquitted from all the charges. But the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act for having illegal fire arm in his possession. 5. The appellant Kamal has preferred this appeal on several grounds, but his counsel submitted that he does not want to press the appeal on merits. His limited prayer is that during the trial the appellant had remained in custody from 26.2.2014 to 28.1.2015 (11 months). From the date of conviction, he remained in custody from 28.6.2016 to 29.7.2016 (30 days) and again remained in jail from 21.11.2017 to 4.1.2018 for bail jump. Thus, in total he has served out jail term of 13 months 23 days (approximately 14 months) out of total sentence of 3 years. He has already deposited the fine of Rs.1000/-. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has no criminal record. He was not found involved in the crime under section 307 of IPC and is acquitted from the charge. He was not on the spot and was not named in the FIR. He has already deposited the fine of Rs.1000/-. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has no criminal record. He was not found involved in the crime under section 307 of IPC and is acquitted from the charge. He was not on the spot and was not named in the FIR. No allegation has been made against him that he had ever fired gun shot on the complainant. He was 24 years old young man, with no criminal record. Even after releasing on bail, no other criminal case has ever been registered against him. Both the independent witnesses of seizure, have turned hostile. He is petty contractor and take contracts of painting and whitewashing in domestic houses and earns his livelihood from that job. He belongs to a poor family and does not have sufficient means. Therefore, his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone, which is about two years with remission; he is entitled for. 7. Learned public prosecutor has opposed the prayer, but has not contested the fact that no other criminal case is registered against the appellant or the appellant has any other criminal record. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be served, if sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already under gone and by enhancing the fine amount. 9. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under section 25(1B)(a) is upheld. The sentence awarded by learned trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone and fine of Rs. 5000/- is imposed. As per statement made by the learned counsel, Rs. 1000/- has already been deposited, therefore, the same be adjusted against the fine imposed by this Court, which means the appellant has to deposit only Rs. 4000/-. In default of payment of this fine amount he shall suffer 2 months rigorous imprisonment. 10. Order of the learned trial Court regarding disposal of the case property is hereby confirmed. 11. With this modification, the present appeal is partly allowed and is disposed of accordingly.