Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gaya Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 578 of 2009
BETWEEN:-
GAYA SINGH, S/O MOTILAL GOND, AGED ABOUT 35
YE A R S , NARAYANDEEH, P.S. SHAHPUR, DISTRCIT
DINDORI(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI MANISH KUMAR MUKHARIYA - ADVOCATE AS AMICUS
CURIAE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION SHAHPUR, DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. SEEMA SAHU - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Dindori (M.P.) in S.T.
No.136/2008 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 294 and
sentenced only to fine of Rs.100/- and under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced
to undergo 01 year S.I. with fine of Rs.100/-, with default stipulations.
2 . As none appeared on behalf of the appellant, Shri Manish Kumar
Mukhariya, Advocate who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist
the Court on behalf of the appellant as amicus curiae.
3 . A s per prosecution story, on 16.08.2008 the appellant went to the
field of Devilal and abused him with obscene words and thereafter went to his
house and there also uttered the obscene words and when Devilal objected to
this, the appellant caused grievous injury with the sharp edged Farsi to him in
his left hand.
4 . Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he does not
press the appeal on the findings of conviction on the point of sentence. He
further submits that the incident was of the year 2008. The appellant has no
criminal antecedents. There was no mens rea behind the incident so a liberal
view on the point of sentence be taken by the Court. So he prayed that the
sentence be reduced to period already undergone.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State
supported the finding of conviction. He said that Court is at liberty to consider
the case on the point of sentence.
6. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal
of record, FIR was lodged on 17.08.2008 and offence under Sections 294, 323
and 506 of IPC has been registered against the appellant. After investigation
charge sheet was filed.
7. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses
by judgment dated 28.02.2009 convicted the appellant under Sections 294 and
324 of IPC and sentenced as stated herein above, however, the findings of
conviction of accused/appellant recorded by the learned trial Judge are based
on due appreciation of evidence and do not require any interference.
8. Having regard to the arguments of the parties, and careful perusal of
record and also the provisions of Sections 294 and 324 of IPC wherein there is
no minimum sentence is prescribed under the aforesaid sections. In this case of
conviction, keeping in view the long pendency of this appeal since 2009 and
keeping in view that appellant is facing mental agony since then and that
prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellant he
did not misuse the liberty granted under the bail. He has suffered incarceration
of 06 days (since 20.08.2008 to 26.08.2008). In the considered opinion of this
court, the sentence of imprisonment under Section 324 of IPC may be reduced
to the period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine intact
and the order of the trial Court regarding the disposal of the seized article.
9. The appellant is on bail, his personal bond and bail bond be
discharged. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed.
10. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the
judgment.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
sjk
