Gopal vs The State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 10175 MP

                                  1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                            AT INDORE
                             BEFORE
                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

                      ON THE 27th OF JULY, 2022

               CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1453 of 1999

Between:-
GOPAL S/O RAMA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O: VILLAGE LADON, TEHSIL AGAR,
DISTRICT SHAJAPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                      .....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI DARSHAN ARORA ADV.)

AND

THE STATE OF M.P.
                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI HEMANT SHARMA, AG)
     This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the

following:




                            JUDGMENT

1/ This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.") against the impugned judgment dated 22.10.1999 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Agar, District Shajapur in S.T. No.182/1997, whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to

undergo 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.400/-, with default stipulation of 4 months R.I.

2/ The prosecution story in brief is that on 1.6.1997 complainant Shivlal lodged a report at P.S. Kanad by stating that at about 7 p.m. while he was consuming liquor with the appellant, he said to the appellant that he will not take more wine, then appellant Gopal started abusing him and struck with sickle, resulting in injury on his left eye. Hearing his hue and cry Gangaram came there, then appellant ran away from the spot. Accordingly offence has been registered. Injured was sent to the PHC, Kanad. His medical examination was conducted by Dr. S.K. Paliwal (PW-5) and a lacerated wound over the left eyebrow having size 3x1x1 c.m. was found and hematoma was also found there. He was referred for x-ray. During the x-ray examination, a fracture found on left parietal region. A sickle has also been recovered from the possession of the appellant.

3/ After completing the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the appellant before the JMFC, Agar, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, which was transferred to the Court of ASJ, Agar. The trial Court has framed the charges under Section 307 and 504 of IPC against the appellant. Appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence. The prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses, but no defence witness was examined by the appellant.

4/ The trial Court after considering the arguments advanced by both the parties and considering the entire evidence on record, convicted and sentence the appellant as mentioned herein-above. Being aggrieved

by the said judgment, the appellant has preferred present appeal before this Court.

5/ The appellant has preferred this appeal on several grounds but during the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant did not press this appeal on merit. He did not assail the finding part of the judgment. He has confined his argument to the quantum of sentence only. His sole prayer is that imprisonment of the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone, as the appellant has already suffered jail incarceration for a period of about one month and he is facing trial since 1997. It is further submitted that appellant is now about 55 years old person. He is also a poor person. He has no criminal past. Therefore, his jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.

6/ Per contra, learned GA for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the appeal by submitting the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant.

7/ Heard learned counsel for both the parties and considered their arguments.

8/ In view of the above submission, although the conviction has not been challenged by the appellant, but perusal of the evidence available on record also justifies the order and judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court.

9/ So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant appears to be just and proper. The appellant remained in jail from 21.7.1997 to 4.8.1997 during trial and during the pendency of this appeal he also remained in

jail from 24.8.2005 to 16.9.2005, which is more than one month. The appellant is facing trial since 1997 for a period of 25 years. He has now turned 55 years old person, therefore, in the interest of justice it would be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.

10/ Having regard to the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed by maintaining the conviction of the appellant but reducing his sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant. However, the amount of fine is enhanced to Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousand Rupees) and in default appellant shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Appellant Gopal is on bail. His surety and bail bonds stand discharged.

11/ The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by the trial Court is also affirmed.

12/ Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with the record of the trial Court to the concerned trial Court for its necessary compliance.

C.C. as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Trilok/-

Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Date: 2022.07.30 10:52:09 +05'30'