Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devi Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 1 March, 2023
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 1 st OF MARCH, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 169 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
DEVI SINGH S/O SURENDER LAL LODHI, AGED ABOUT
19 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILL. MOCHAR P.S.ISAGARH
DISTRICT ASHOK NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI SHOBHENDRA KUMAR TIWARI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
APPELLANT)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. INCHARGE POLICE STATION
P.S.ISAGARH, DISTRICT ASHOK NAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI CP SINGH- LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT- STATE
AND SHRI JAI PRAKASH MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
COMPLAINANT.
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Instant criminal appeal under Section 374 of CrPC has been filed by
appellant Devi Singh, challenging his judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 23rd February, 2005 passed by Second Additional Sessions
Judge, Ashok Nagar, Guna in Sessions Trial No. 157 of 2003, convicting him
for offence under Section 308 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo three
years RI with fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation.
Prosecution case, in short, is that on 02-03-2003 at around 08:00 pm,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 3/3/2023
6:42:41 PM
complainant Yaswant (PW2) lodged an FIR at police station Ishagarh against
present appellant Devi Singh and three other persons stating therein that on the
date of incident he along with Rajkumar (PW2) were standing outside their
house and were talking each other. Co-accused (acquitted) Sunderlal came there
armed with lathi and present appellant armed with an axe and abused the
complainant, will you construct a road from their field. On this, Rajkumar
replied that it is the Government work, nothing is to be said to him. Another co-
accused (acquitted) Ravindra and Mahendra also came there armed with luhangi
and lathi. Ravindra inflicted luhangi blow on the head of Rajkumar and
Sunderlal inflicted lathi blow on Yashwant. Appellant is alleged to have inflicted
axe blow on the head of Rajkumar due to which Rajkumar fell down on the
ground. Thereafter, Mahendra also inflicted lathi blow at Yashwant. On hearing
cry, the appellant and other co-accused persons also gave a threat. The incident
was witnessed by Mukesh (PW5) and Bhagwan Lodhi (PW4). On the basis of
which, FIR was lodged by the complainant Yashwant at Police Station Ishagarh
for offence under Sections 341, 323, 294, 506-B, 324, 34 of IPC. Thereafter,
both injured- complainant Yashwant and Rajkumar were sent for medical
examination. As per opinion of doctor, five-six incised wounds on fronto-
parietal region and one contusion were found on the right side of nose of
injured Rajkumar and contusion and scratch mark on left shoulder were also
found on the body of injured Yashwant. As per X-ray report given by Dr. R.K.
Jain (PW8), fracture of fronto- parietal bond was found. Offence was enhanced
under Section 326 and thereafter, under Section 307 of IPC. After completion
of investigation and other formalities, charge sheet was filed before the
competent Court from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court for
its trial. After conclusion of trial, the trial Court vide impugned judgment
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 3/3/2023
6:42:41 PM
acquitted other co-accused persons and convicted the present appellant for
commision of offence under Section 308 of IPC and sentenced him
accordingly, as stated above.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does
not challenge the finding of conviction but he confines his argument to the
quantum of sentence part only. It is contended that since occurrence has taken
place as back as in the year 2003 and the appellant has served in custody a
period of five months 15 days out of total jail sentence and the fine amount has
already been deposited, therefore, it is prayed that substantive jail sentence
awarded to appellant for aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
O n the other hand, State Counsel as well as complainant opposed the
contentions of counsel for the appellant and submitted that there is neither any
occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to appellant nor any
compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment as well as
record.
It is not disputed that the occurrence relates to year 2003 and appellant
has so far served a period of five months 15 days in custody out of total jail
sentence and so also, suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus,
looking to overall circumstances and also keeping in view the fact that offence
in question was committed nearly more than 19 years back, it will be just and
proper if sentence awarded by trial Court for offence under Section 308 of IPC
is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.
Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 3/3/2023
6:42:41 PM
conviction for offence under Section 308 of IPC, the sentence awarded to
appellant is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. However,
sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.5,000/- as awarded by the
Court below. The fine amount, if any, deposited by appellant shall be adjusted
in the enhance amount. Two months' time from the date of receipt of copy of
this judgment, is hereby granted to the appellant to deposit the aforesaid fine
amount and the same shall be payable to complainant/injured by way of
compensation, failing which the appellant shall undergo further six months
rigorous imprisonment as awarded by trial Court. Appellant is on bail, his bail
bond and surety bond stand discharged.
Let a copy of this order along with record of trial Court be sent back
forthwith.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE
MKB
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 3/3/2023
6:42:41 PM
