Guddi Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7395 MP

                                                                         1                              CRA-6433-2020
                                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                       CRA No. 6433 of 2020
                                                         (GUDDI PATEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


                                      Jabalpur, Dated : 15-11-2021
                                            Shri P.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                            Shri Dhirender Singh, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A.No.14224//2020, which is an application filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he may be permitted

to withdraw this application.

Prayer is accepted.

Accordingly, application is dismissed as withdrawn. Heard finally at the motion stage.

This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction dated 10.12.2020 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Rehli, District Sagar in ST.No.497/2014, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC and directed to suffer R.I. for 7

years with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

Brief facts of the case are that on 24.10.2014 at around 11.14 PM the complainant Peetam Patel was standing in front of Jwala Mai Mandir located at Village Kachi Pipariya where the function of diwali festival was going on, at around, 10.40 PM appellant Guddi Patel came there armed with axe and abused the complainant Peetam Patel and assaulted him with axe due to which he sustained injury in his right wrist and his ulna bone got fractured, Bhujbal Patel, Shivdayal Patel and Dinesh Patel rescued him. On the report of complainant Peetam Patel, police registered Crime No.626/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 294, 506 Part II of IPC and investigated the matter. After investigation, police filed the charge sheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 294, 506 Signature Not Verified SAN Part II and 326 of IPC before JMFC, Rehli, District Sagar who committed the Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 2021.11.16 16:25:12 IST 2 CRA-6433-2020 case to the Court of Session. On that charge sheet, ST No.497/2014 was registered. Learned ASJ framed charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 294, 326, 506 Part II of IPC and tried the case. The appellant abjured his guilt and took the defence that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime. However after the trial learned ASJ

acquitted the applicant from the charge punishable under Section 294, 506 Part II of the IPC, however found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment appellant preferred this appeal.

Although, apart from the quantum of sentence appellant in this appeal has also challenged the legality of the conviction, during course of the arguments learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not want to press the appeal on the finding of conviction.

Otherwise also from the evidence produced by the prosecution, finding of conviction of the trial Court under Section 326 of IPC appears to be correct. So the findings of the conviction of the trial Court is affirmed.

On the point of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant/accused is first offender. It is submitted that the appellant was on bail during trial and he never misused the liberty granted to him. The appellant has been in custody since 10.12.2020. Further, the appellant has no criminal past, nor was he involved in any unlawful activities subsequent to this incident. So he be released on sentence already undergone.

Certainly, the pre and past incidents, conduct of the appellant, cannot be lost sight of and can be taken as mitigating circumstances. The applicant has no criminal past. So looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to the fact that the appellant is in jail since 10/12/2020 and earlier also during trial of the case the appellant remained in jail from 19.11.2014 to 24.11.2014, he is facing trial since year 2014, the substantive jail sentence of

Signature Not Verified SAN imprisonment is reduced to one year R.I. in place of seven years R.I. and the

Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 2021.11.16 16:25:12 IST 3 CRA-6433-2020 sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- in place of Rs.1,000/-, the fine amount so deposited by the appellant shall be payable to the complainant/injured Peetam Patel under Section 357 (1) of CrPC. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount applicant shall suffer one-year R.I. The period already undergone shall set off from the period of the substantive jail sentence.

The impugned judgment of the trial Court is modified accordingly. Hence, this appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE

(ra)

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 2021.11.16 16:25:12 IST