Charan Singh vs The State Of M.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 8695 MP

                                                                                              1

                       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
                                                                             (Single Bench)
                                                       Criminal Appeal No. 1206/1998
                                                                               Charan Singh
                                                                                          Vs.
                                                            The State of Madhya Pradesh
Appearance:
Shri Y.K. Gupta, Counsel for the appellants.
Shri Amit Garg, Panel Lawyer for the respondent State.
CORAM                                                                           Hon'ble Shri Justice Virender Singh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                         JUDGMENT

(15.12.2021)

Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.4.1998 delivered by IX

Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No. 404/1997, the

appellant has preferred this appeal. The Trial Court has convicted the appellant

under Sections 436 and 324 Indian Penal Code and has awarded three years

rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 436

and 2 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 Indian

Penal Code. He was further directed to undergo three months simple

imprisonment for non-payment of fine of Rs.500/-. It is further directed that

both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case in short is that on 13.7.1997 the victim

Shrawannath demanded his chisel and hammer from the appellant taken by him

4-5 days prior to the incident. Got enraged by this demand, appellant abused

him and put his shanty ablazed. When the complainant tried to stop him, he

inflicted a battle-axe on his head and caused a simple incised wound.

Kusumbai (PW 2), Aminabi and Lateef Khan (PW 4) intervened and saved

him. The complainant was sent to J.P. Hospital, Bhopal for medical

examination. The police was intimated. A.S.I. Virendra Ghuraiya (PW 6)

visited the hospital and recorded Dehati (Ex. P-1) and on the basis of Dehati

Nalshi Crime No. 247/1997 was registered, ascribing the F.I.R. During the

investigation the Police arrested the appellant, recovered battle-axe from his

possession (Ex. P-10), prepared spot map (Ex. P-7) and Nuksani Panchnama

(Ex. P-8) and after completing the investigation, filed the charge-sheet.

3. The appellant was charged under Section 307 and 436 of the Indian

Penal Code. He abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. After the trial he has

been convicted and sentenced as stated in paragraph 1 above.

4. The appellant has preferred the appeal on the several grounds; however,

learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press the

appeal on merits. His limited prayer is that the jail sentence may be reduced to

the period already undergone by imposing some fine upon him. It is submitted

that the appellant and complainants both are neighbour and labour. They both

belong to poor strata of the society. They used to make metal or bolder by

breaking rocks. They used to work together under the same contractor. The

incident had taken place in the year 1997 and since then the appellant has been

facing the Court proceedings. As per Nuksani Panchnama (Ex. P-8) a loss of

Rs.4-5 thousand had been caused. He has cooperated with the trial and is still

marking his presence. He has remained in jail from 15.9.1997 to 23.9.1997 and

25.4.1998 to 28.5.1998, i.e., for 1 month and 11 days. He is now 52 years of

age and now no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him in jail again

after 25 years of the incident. The fine amount imposed by the learned trial

court has already been deposited, therefore, the sentece of the appellant may be

reduced to the period already undergone.

5. The State has opposed the prayer. Relying on the statement of the

complainant, the learned Panel Lawyer has supported the conviction and

sentence of the appellants.

6. So far as sentence of the appellant is concerned, it is proved that the

incident had taken place in the year 1997. It was an outcome of sudden dispute

between the appellant and the complainant on petty issues. In a spur of

moment the incident had taken place. The injuries are simple in nature.

Keeping in view the nature of incident and the manner in which it had

happened, the injury caused and the long span of time which has been passed

and also considering that there is nothing against the appellant during this long

span of time, I deem it appropriate to accede the prayer of the learned counsel

to modify the sentence of the appellant.

7. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant

under Sections 436 and 324 I.P.C is confirmed. However, their sentence is

modified to the extent that the appellant is sentenced to the period already

undergone along with the fine of Rs.2000/- each to the appellant for his

respective offences. In default he shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for

one month.

8. With the aforesaid modification the appeal is partly allowed and

disposed of.

(Virender Singh) Judge VIVEK

Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Date: 2021.12.17 14:38:28 +05'30'