Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ghudamba @ Sukhdev vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 13 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 964 of 2009
BETWEEN:-
GHUDAMBA @ SUKHDEV S/O SHYAMRAO KUNVI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O HAMLAPUR PS BETUL,
DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SOMESH GUPTA - AMICUS CURIAE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH P.S. BETUL,
DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
(BY SHRI NARENDRA LODHI - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGEMENT
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 dated 30/4/2009 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Betul in S.T.
No.80/2008 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 325 of
Indian Penal Code and sentenced t o undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of
Rs.250/- and in default, to further undergo R.I. 2 months.
2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellant, Shri Somesh Gupta,
Advocate who is present in the court, has been requested to assist the Court on
behalf of the appellant as amicus curiae.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 15/1/2008 on some dispute between
complainant Sahdev and appellant. Appellant assaulted complainant by means
of stick on his left wrist, left leg and mouth. On the report of complainant, FIR
was registered and the matter was investigated. After completion of
investigation, charge sheet was filed and upon conclusion of trial, the appellant
was held guilty and sentenced as detailed above.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from the evidence on
record, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted, alternatively, he submits that in
facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence may be reduced to the period
already undergone. He further submits that during the trial, the appellant
remained in custody for 1 day (as per the certificate under Section 428 of
Cr.P.C. appended with the record). The incident was of the year 2008 and
taken place all of a sudden and heat and passion. There was no mens ria behind
the incident so a liberal view of the point of sentence be taken by the Court, so
he prayed that the sentence be reduced to period already undergone.
5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer submitted that the findings of learned
trial Court does not call for any interference. But, it would be appropriate to
consider on the point of sentence and Court is at liberty to consider the matter
on the point of sentence.
6. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of
record, it appears that the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable
under Section 325 of the IPC and there is no minimum sentence has been
prescribed under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code.
7. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by
judgment dated 30/4/2009, convicted the appellant under Section 325 of the
IPC and sentenced as stated herein above. The findings and conviction
recorded by the learned trial Judge are based on due appreciation of evidence
and do not require any interference. The judgment of conviction and conviction
under Section 325 of the IPC is upheld.
8. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year 2008,
the appellant remained in custody for 1 day, the prosecution has not brought
any past criminal antecedents of the appellant on record and there is no
minimum sentence has been prescribed under Section 325 of Indian Penal
Code, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellant to the extent
of the period which he has already undergone.
9. Accordingly, the jail sentence in aforesaid offence is reduced to the period
already undergone and the sentence of fine amount is maintained.
10. The appellant is on bail, his personal bond and bail bond be discharged.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed
11. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
m/-
