Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 51 (MP)

ABDUL RAZZAK S/o ABDUL GHANI v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2022-01-10

SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH

body2022
JUDGMENT SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH, J. : – Appellant has preferred this appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (in short Cr.P.C.) being aggrieved by the judgment dated 7-9-1999 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Distt. Dewas in S. T. No 53/1999, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called IPC) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 7-1-1999 at about 13:00 p.m., while complainant’s son Santosh was going towards Bagli Bazar, the appellant met him in front of Guddu’s house. Appellant asked Santosh as to why he has made complaint to the liquor contractor about selling of liquor and when Santosh denied, he assaulted him with deadly weapon knife on left side of his back in between the ribs and caused grievous injury to him. Santosh told about the incident to Laxmichand and thereafter to his father complainant Radheyshyam who took him to Primary Health Care Centre, Bagli where Dr. S. K. Gupta, medically examined Santosh and found a stab wound measuring 3x4 inches x ½ inchesx2 ½ inches deep obliquely on the left side of his back in frontal region and after preparing MLC report (Ex. P-3) referred him to M. Y. Hospital, Indore where on the same day, Dr. Anurag Goyal admitted and treated him till 13-1-1999 as per treatment card (Ex P-11). On the same day, SHO J. G. Choubey lodged the FIR (Ex P-1) on the report of complainant Radheyshyam whereafter, SHO J. G. Choubey rushed to the spot and prepared spot map (Ex. P-2), seized blood stained shirt and vest of the injured Santosh from the possession of his father/complainant-Radheyshyam as per seizure memo (Ex. P-6). 3. During investigation, appellant was arrested under section 151 of Criminal Procedure Code and a knife was seized from his possession as per seizure memo (Ex. P-7). Thereafter, SHO J. G. Choubey made formal arrest of the appellant in the crime as per arrest memo (Ex. P-8). Vide letter (Ex. P-9), he sent all the seized material for chemical analysis to Forensic Science Lab, Sagar. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagli who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 4. P-8). Vide letter (Ex. P-9), he sent all the seized material for chemical analysis to Forensic Science Lab, Sagar. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagli who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 4. Trial Court after considering the prosecution evidence, framed charges under section 307 of Indian Penal Code. The appellant abjured his guilt in his statement recorded under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. 5. On considering the prosecution evidence, learned Court of Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under section 324 of Indian Penal Code instead of 307of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that incident occurred all of a sudden and only one injury was found on the body of the injured. Learned Court below has not found the same as dangerous to life and convicted the appellant under section 324 of Indian Penal Code. Appellant remained in custody from the date of arrest i.e. 8-1-1999 till 5-2-1999 for a period of 29 days as per certificate under section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, looking to the nature of injuries and overt act of the appellant, jail sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in custody. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that conviction and sentence given by the Sessions Court is proper. He further submits that in case the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, heavy fine may be imposed upon him. 8. On considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking the facts and circumstances of the case, it apparent that appellant does not challenge the merits of the case. However, looking to the statement of complainant Radheyshya (PW-1) and his son/victim Santosh (PW-2) which is supported by timely lodged FIR (Ex. P-1), statement and MLC report (Ex.P-3) of Dr. H. K. Gupta (PW-4), it appears that appellant was rightly convicted for the offence punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is true that appellant caused one stab injury deep obliquely on the left side of his back in frontal region. P-1), statement and MLC report (Ex.P-3) of Dr. H. K. Gupta (PW-4), it appears that appellant was rightly convicted for the offence punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is true that appellant caused one stab injury deep obliquely on the left side of his back in frontal region. Under such circumstances where the appellant was the first offender and remained in custody for during the pre conviction period i.e. for 29 days, it would be appropriate to reduce his jail sentence to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody with a heavy fine. 9. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby partly allowed. His conviction for offence punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code is hereby maintained, but the sentence is reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody. However, since learned Court below has not imposed any fine amount, he is directed to deposit fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months. Out of the said amount of fine, Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid to the injured/victim. The fine amount so imposed shall be deposited before the trial Court within one month from today. 10. Since appellant has been granted suspension of sentence by this Court vide order dated 4-10-1999, his bail bonds shall stand discharged and appellant be set at liberty, if not required in any other case, subject to deposit of fine amount as mentioned above. 11. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information.