Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 71 (MP)

Govind Singh Sondhiya Rajput v. State of M. P.

2021-01-25

SHAILENDRA SHUKLA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Shailendra Shukla, J. 1. Vide judgment dated 21.12.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Neemuch in Sessions Case No. 37/2018 the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Fine Sentence in lieu of payment of fine amount. 304 (Part-II) IPC 5 years R.I. Rs. 10,000/- 1 year's R.I. 324 IPC(in respect of injured Kajal) 6 months R.I. Rs. 2,000/- 1 month's R.I. 324 IPC (in respect of injured Payal) 6 months R.I. Rs. 2,000/- 1 month's R.I. 2. All the aforesaid jail sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. The facts of the case reveal that on 4.4.2018 during marriage function the deceased Rachana with her family members was preparing for lighting flame for Havan. This was being done with the help of dry cow dung. At that moment appellant brought a kerosene Can and poured the kerosene on the cow dung, due to which fire flames got suddenly aggravated and at that point of time the appellant threw the kerosene can aside but the Can landed upon the deceased Rachana. Other girls standing nearby namely Kajal and Payal had also received injuries as a consequence of the act of the appellant. The victim Rachana was seriously injured and succumbed to her burn injuries later on. A report was lodged under Section 304 and 324 of the IPC. After investigation charge sheet was filed and in the ensuing judgment the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as already described. The jail sentences imposed upon the appellant have been ordered to run concurrently in this matter. 4. As already referred earlier, learned counsel for the appellant does not seek to controvert the findings arrived at by the trial Court. The original record is available with this Court. The same was perused. 5. The findings are based on appropriate appreciation of evidence of the witnesses, hence no interference is required in respect of the findings so arrived at. 6. Considered on the point of quantum of sentence. 7. The appellant as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C. has suffered imprisonment from 23.5.2018 to 21.6.2018 i.e. about one month and thereafter he has been in jail from the date of pronouncement of the judgment dated 21.12.2018. A perusal of the case shows that the act of the appellant was more of a rash act on his part. 7. The appellant as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C. has suffered imprisonment from 23.5.2018 to 21.6.2018 i.e. about one month and thereafter he has been in jail from the date of pronouncement of the judgment dated 21.12.2018. A perusal of the case shows that the act of the appellant was more of a rash act on his part. He was involved in inflaming the cow dung for the purpose of performance of Havan but accidentally his act resulted in the said incident involving the death of deceased Rachna and also causing injuries to two other girls standing nearby. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State was heard in respect of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant for reduction of jail sentence. 9. After due consideration, in view of the sequence of events which resulted in the appellant's prosecution, it would be appropriate to reduce the quantum of jail sentence from 5 years R.I. in respect of Section 304 (Part-II) IPC to 3 years R.I. with consequential enhancement of fine amount from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-, non payment of which would result in punishment of separate R.I. of one year. There shall be no change in the quantum of sentence in respect of other proved offence under Section 324 of the IPC. It is directed that out of the fine amount of Rs. 30,000/- imposed under Section 304 (Part-II) of the IPC, Rs. 10,000/- shall be given to the survivor of the deceased Rachana and Rs. 5,000/- each shall be given to the other two injured girls namely Kajal and Payal. 10. The appeal thereby succeeds on the question of quantum of jail sentence, however with consequential enhancement of fine amount. The period spent in jail shall be counted for in determining the total sentence imposed upon the appellant. Both jail sentences shall run concurrently. The disposal of property shall be as per the direction of the trial Court. 11. The appeal stands disposed off finally. 12. A copy of this judgment be sent along with the original record of the case to the concerned trial Court for compliance.