Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sohan Kumar vs The State Of M.P. on 24 March, 2022
Author: Virender Singh
1
CRA-893-1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT
JABALPUR
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
ON THE 24th MARCH, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criminal Appeal No.893/1998
Between:-
(1) Sohan Kumar, S/o Uddhav Rasal
aged about 23 years, R/o Talab Mohalla,
Itarsi, Hoshangabad (M.P.)
(2) Rajju Ludakia, S/o Ram Ratan
Caste Banjara, aged about 28 years,
R/o Opposite Kamla Nehru Park, Talab Mohalla
Itarsi, Hoshangabad (M.P.) ... Appellants
AND
State of M.P. through SHO of
P.S. Itarsi Nagar Distt. Hoshangabad ...Respondent
Shri S.C. Chaturvedi, counsel for the appellants.
Shri Satyapal Chadhar, Public Prosecutor for the State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 26.03.1998
passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in S.T.
No.9/92, the appellants have preferred this appeal. They have
been convicted and sentenced as under :
Convicted u/S Sentenced to
326/34 of IPC undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of
Rs.500/- with default stipulation.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 09.06.1989 at
about 7.45 in the morning, the appellants on account of some
previous enmity assaulted the complainant Rajendra by means of
CRA-893-1998
a sword, causing injuries on his neck, right middle and ring
fingers. It was upon an FIR (Ex.P/1) lodged by the complainant
that a case under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC was registered
against the appellants. He was sent to J.S.R. Hospital, Itarsi for
medical examination. The injury sustained on his right middle
finger was characterized as grievous in nature. The police visited
the spot and prepared spot map, recorded statements of the
witnesses, seized weapon of offence and after completing other
formal investigation, filed charge-sheet.
3. The appellants were charged under Sections 307 and 307
read with 34 of IPC. They abjured the guilt and pleaded false
implication. To bring home the charges, prosecution examined as
many as 8 witnesses including complainant Rajendra (PW1) and
Dr P.D. Agrawal (PW3). In defence, three witnesses were
examined.
4. On consideration of entire evidence on record, the ld. trial
Judge, for the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment,
though acquitted the appellants of the charges under Sections 307
and 307/34 of IPC but found them guilty under Section 326/34 of
IPC and awarded punishment as stated in paragraph 1 above.
5. The appellant has preferred this appeal on several grounds
but during the arguments, the ld. counsel representing them
submitted that he does not want to press the appeal on merits. His
limited prayer is that the incident pertains to the year 1989. Since
last about 32 years, the appellants are facing trial. The appellants
were only 23 and 28 years' old at the time of incident. Now, they
are aged about 55 and 60 years respectively. The appellants are
the sole bread earner of their family. They are on bail and if sent
CRA-893-1998
to jail, their family would starve to death. They have already
suffered a lot and have also faced rigorous trial. During trial, the
appellants remained on bail and have never misused the liberty
granted by the trial Court. They have cooperated with the trial
and also diligently appeared in the appeal, as and when directed
by this Court. He submitted that the appellants have already
served more than two months in the jail. Therefore, their jail
sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. Fine
amount may be enhanced to some extent.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer but has
not controverted the facts submitted by the learned counsel for
the appellants.
7. After going through the record, particularly the injury
report and duration of the trial, the appellants have faced; in the
considered opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be
sub-served if the jail sentence of the appellants is reduced to the
period already undergone with some enhancement in the fine
amount.
8. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned
conviction under Section 326/34 of IPC is upheld. However, the
term of consequent sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the
period already undergone by the appellants. The sentence of fine
is enhanced from Rs.500-500/- to Rs.12,500/- each, Total
Rs.25,000/-.
9. Both the appellants are directed to deposit the enhanced
fine amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.12,500/- + Rs.12,500/-) before
the trial Court within two months from today, failing which each
of them shall undergo for 3 months additional R.I. Amount, if
CRA-893-1998
any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted. If fine is not deposited
within two months then the trial Court shall proceed under
Section 68 of IPC. If fine is deposited, then a sum of Rs.15,000/-
be given to the complainant Rajendra Agrawal.
10. The order of the trial Court with regard to disposal of the
case property is hereby affirmed.
11. With the aforesaid modification, the present appeal is
partly allowed and disposed off.
(Virender Singh)
JUDGE
vinod
Digitally signed by
VINOD VISHWAKARMA
Date: 2022.03.29
17:59:56 +05'30'
