Govind Pawar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 5479 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Govind Pawar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2024

                                   1
 IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT JABALPUR
                          BEFORE
         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
                   ON THE 22 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1768 of 2006

BETWEEN:-
GOVIND PAWAR S/O RADHESHYAM PAWAR, AGED
ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILL
HATHIGHAT,PS    NASRULLAGANJ,DISTT   DISTRICT
SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                               .....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI BRIJESH SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE)

AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SEHORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. SEEMA SAHU - PANEL LAWYER)

      Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Nasrullaganj, District Sehore, in ST No.11/2005 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 323 of IPC (two counts) and sentenced to undergo 6 months SI and fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default, to further undergo two months SI for each offence.

2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellant, Shri Brijesh Shrivastava, Advocate who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant as amicus curiae.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in brief are that on 06.12.2005 at about 12:00 O'clock in the noon, the appellant has assaulted and caused voluntarily simple injuries to Narmadi Bai (since deceased) and Parwati Bail.

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 fact and circumstances of the case, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. 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. Court is at liberty to consider the matter on the point of sentence.

6. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by judgment dated 13.09.2006 convicted the appellant under Sections 323 of IPC (two counts) and sentenced as stated herein above, however, t h e findings recorded by the learned trial Judge are based on due appreciation of evidence and do not require any interference. The judgment of conviction under Sections 323 of IPC (two counts) is upheld.

7. However, looking to the facts that the incident is of the year 2005 since then the appellant is facing mental agony, the appellant remained in custody for 22 days. Appellant was of 29 years of age at the time of incident. The prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellant on record and there is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Sections 323 of IPC at that time, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the

appellant to the extent of the period which he has already undergone and accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone (22 days) by him and the sentence of fine amount and order of compensation is maintained. The appellant is on bail, his personal bond and bail bond be discharged. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed.

8. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE Digitally L.R.signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2024.03.06 18:27:41 +05'30'