Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yusuf Khan vs The State Of M.P. on 9 December, 2021
Author: Anil Verma
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
BEFORE SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL VERMA, J.
CRA No. 788 of 2000
YUSUF KHAN AND ANOTHER
Vs
THE STATE OF M.P.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants .
Ms. Seema Maheshwari PL for the respondent/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGEMENT
( Delivered on 09/12/2021)
Present Criminal Appeal at the instance of present
appellants/accused Yusuf Khan and Yunus Khan under section 374 of
Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short "Cr.P.C" ) has been filed being
aggrieved by judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
30/06/2000 passed in Sessions Trial no. 38/1999 by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Ratlam, whereby both the appellants were convicted
under section 323 of Indian Penal Code ( in short " IPC") and
sentenced each of them to undergo six months rigorous
imprisonment.
2. Co-accused Bhura @ Abdul Hafeez has been convicted
under section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment
with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 20/12/1998 at about 7.00
pm, deceased Dharmendra and one Sanjay went to Naharpur to meet
their friend on Deepawali occasion. They were going through the lane
of Astha Hospital on foot, at that time, co-accused Bhura @ Abdul
Hafeez was there. Dharmendra told him , why he was threatening his
brother. On this, quarrel took place between them. Present appellants
Yusuf Khan and Yunus Khan reached there and started to beat
Dharmendra by using kicks and fists. Both the appellants told that
they would kill him. Thereafter, co-accused Bhura took out a pistol
from his pocket and fired at Dharmendra. Due to which, Dharmendra
sustained gun shot injury on his chest and he fell down on earth.
Complainant Sanjay witnessed the incident, but he could not intervene
due to fear. Thereafter, accused persons fled away from the spot.
Sanjay lodged FIR at Manak Chouwk Police Station. On the basis of
which, the crime was registered against the present appellant and co-
accused Bhura under section 307/34 of IPC. Injured Dharmendra was
taken to the hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries, therefore,
the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC was added.
4. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Learned trial
Court framed the charges under sections 302/34 ofIPC against the
appellants and co-accused Bhura. The appellants/accused pleaded no
guilty of the offence and prayed for trial in their statements under
section 313 of Cr.P.C. Prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses
while no defence witness was produced and examined before the trial
Court. After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned
trial Court convicted the appellants under section 323 of IPC and
sentenced each of them to undergo six months rigorous
imprisonment.
5. The appellants have preferred present appeal on several
grounds, but during the course of the arguments, learned counsel for
the appellants did not press this appeal on merit. He did not assail
the finding part of the judgment. He confined his argument to the
quantum of the sentence part. His only prayer is that the
imprisonment of the appellant be reduced to the period already
undergone as the appellants have already suffered more than three
months imprisonment and they are facing trial since 1999. During trial
as well as pendency of this appeal, they have co-operated. It is further
submitted that both the appellants are poor persons. They have no
criminal past and no criminal case prior or after this incident has been
registered against them, therefore, their sentence may be reduced to
the period already undergone.
6. Per-contra, learned PL for the respondent/State has
opposed the prayer and prays for dismissal of this appeal by
submitting that the trail Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the
appellants and the sentence in question is sufficient.
7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and considered
their arguments.
8. In view of the above submissions, although the conviction
has not been challenged, perusal of the evidence also justifies the
order and judgment passed by the trial Court.
9. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the
submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants appears to be
just and proper. The appellants have already suffered three months
incarceration during trial and after conviction, till the suspension of
their remaining jail sentence. Appellant Yunus Khan was in jail during
trial period as under trial prisoner from 25/12/1998 to 05/04/1999 and
after that from 01/03/2000 to 15/03/2000, while appellant Yusuf
Khan was in jail from 15/12/1998 to 05/04/1999, which is almost 3 ½
years. Therefore, it would be appropriate to impose the punishment of
three months rigorous imprisonment, in place of six months rigorous
imprisonment in the given circumstances.
10, Consequently, present criminal appeal is partly allowed to
the extend as indicated above.
11. The order regarding disposal of the property as
pronounced is also affirmed. The appellants are on bail; their bail
bonds stands discharged.
12. A copy of this order be communicated to the concerned
trial Court for necessary compliance.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by
AMOL N MAHANAG
Date: 2021.12.11
10:46:53 +05'30'
