Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bane Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 December, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 22 nd OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12475 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
BANE SINGH S/O PREM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: NONE R/O PIPALRAWAN, TEHSIL
SONKATCH, DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SUDHANSHU VYAS - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION PIPALRAWAN, DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SANTOSH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally instead of
hearing on IA No.14980/2023, which is an application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C.
1. The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 of
Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 20.6.2023 passed in
S.T. No.40/2021 by the 2nd ASJ, Sonkatch, District Dewas, whereby the
appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 326 & 307 of IPC
and sentenced to 5 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- (two counts), with usual
default stipulation.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 15.8.2021 at about 3.00 p.m. in front
of the clinic of Dr. Leeladhar some quarrel took place between the
appellant/accused Bane Singh and victim Jitendra on account of delivery of
some items, due to which appellant gave blow of axe over the back side of head
of the victim Jitendra, due to which he sustained injuries. Appellant also
threatened him that today you have escaped but in future I will kill you.
Appellant was admitted in the Vedanta hospital. His MLC was conducted by
Dr. Pulak Nigam (PW-8) and he opined that the occipital bone has been broken
and injury is dangerous to life. During the investigation appellant was arrested
and axe was recovered from his possession.
3. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed
before the JMFC, Sonkatch, District Dewas, who committed the case to the
Court of Sessions, Dewas. Later on the case has been transferred to the 2nd
ASJ, Sonkatch, District Dewas (M.P.). Appellant/accused abjured his guilt and
pleaded complete innocence. Prosecution has examined as many as 11
witnesses, while the defence did not examine any witness. Trial court after
hearing both the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence available on record,
convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove. Being
aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction, appellant has preferred this
appeal.
4. The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal on several grounds but
during the course of arguments, 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 arguments on the quantum of sentence only. His sole prayer is that
the imprisonment of the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone,
as the appellant has already suffered more than two years' imprisonment and he
facing trial since 2021. No minimum sentence has been prescribed for the
offences under Section 326 and 307 of IPC. It is further contended that the
appellant is a poor person and he has no criminal past. Therefore, his sentence
may be reduced to the period already undergone.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the
criminal appeal and prayed for its dismissal by submitting that trial Court has
rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant.
6. Learned counsel for both the parties heard at length and perused the
record.
7. In view of the above submissions, although the conviction has not
been challenged, perusal of the evidence also justified the judgment of
conviction passed by the trial Court.
8. 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 is in custody since 17.8.2021 and he has already suffered actual jail
incarceration for more than 2 years and 4 months. Appellant is not having any
criminal background. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence
to the period already undergone by the appellant.
9. Having regard to the aforesaid, this criminal appeal is partly allowed by
maintaining the conviction, but reducing the sentence to the period already
undergone by the appellant. The appellant is in jail. On depositing the fine
amount, appellant be released from jail forthwith, if he is not required in any
other criminal case.
10. The order regarding disposal of the property, as pronounced by the
trial Court, is affirmed.
11. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with the
record of the trial Court to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.
C.C. as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
trilok
