Baliram vs The State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 22769 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Baliram vs The State Of M.P. on 29 December, 2023

                                                              1
                            IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
                                              ON THE 29 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1497 of 2003

                           BETWEEN:-
                           BALIRAM S/O SUMMILAL KATIYA, AGED ABOUT 19
                           YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PANJRA, P.S.
                           BANKHEDI,    DISTT.  HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI ASHOK CHOUDHARY - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. BANKHEDI, DISTT.
                           HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI SAURABH SHUKLA - PANEL LAWYER)

                                 Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                           following:
                                                               ORDER

This appeal has been filed being aggrieved of the judgment and finding

recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur in S.T. No. 164/99 dated

28th August, 2003 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of deposit of fine amount, 15 days additional R.I. The basic case against the appellant was that on 24/07/1998 at 6 P.M., the appellant with other persons were beating Arvind. When the complainant got the information, he went on the place of incident and saw that his son

Arvind was tied with the Jamun tree and Baliram and wife Kumaliya were beating Arvind and he tried to intervene. Baliram assaulted him with Axe which caused injury on his forehead and co-accused Summilal assaulted him by lathi and Baarelal also injured him.

The case was reported to the Police Station, Bankhedi where crime no. 104/98 was registered under Sections 342, 307 and 323/34 and after investigation, the chargesheet was filed. After commitment, matter was submitted for trial to the Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur.

The trial court has acquitted the appellant from rest of the charges on 19/08/2003 due to compounding of the matter between the parties. This section

307 of I.P.C. being non-compoundable, the trial continued and by the impugned judgment, the trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as above.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties. There is no criminal record against the appellant and no fruitful purpose would be served by resending the appellant to judicial custody as he has already suffered 38 days jail sentence so the jail sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.

Learned Panel Lawyer has argued that the offence is under Section 307 of I.P.C. which is punishable upto life imprisonment and the injuries as per the statement of medical expert are sufficient to endanger the life of a person, hence, no leniency be adopted towards the appellant.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case record. As per the record of the trial court, there was cross case session no. 468/02 which is pending before the trial Court and in that case, the appellant and co-accused persons Kumaliya Bai, Baliram and Summilal also got injuries and

this fact is recorded in para no. 15 of the impugned judgment.

It is also clear that the parties have compromised the matter and on 19/08/2003, the matter was compounded. Thus, it is also clear that relations of the parties have become normal in the light of above facts. It is also noteworthy that the appeal is pending since 2003. The incident pertains to year 1999. More than 24 years have passed. No fruitful purpose would be served to resend the appellant in the jail custody.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court had imposed only six months R.I., therefore, the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. The appellant shall deposit the fine amount adjusting the previous fine amount deposited, if any, before the trial court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, in default, he shall undergo S.I. for four months.

The bail bonds of the appellant subject to realization of the fine amount are discharged. The order of the trial court regarding the case property is upheld.

Thus, with the above observation, the appeal is partly allowed. Record of the trial court be returned back along with the copy of the judgment.

In above terms, the appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.

(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA) JUDGE vy