Full Judgment
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL REVISION NO.793/1999 Ramlal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ................................................................................................. Shri Satish Chaturvedi, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. .................................................................................................... ORDER
(Delivered on the 26th day of February, 2013) The applicant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Orcha, District Tikamgarh vide judgment dated 4.6.1998 in Criminal Case No.645/94 and was sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.300/-. In Criminal Appeal No.16 of 1998 the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh vide judgment dated 28.4.1999 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved with both the judgments the applicant has preferred this revision.
2. The prosecution's case in short is that, on 12.10.1994 one Ram Kishan was going on a bicycle towards his village Tatarpura (Police Station Jairon, District Tikamgarh). In the way the applicant was also going by a 2 Criminal Revision No.793/1999 bicycle having an axe in his hand. A bicycle of the applicant was pushed due to the bicycle of the victim Ram Kishan and therefore, a quarrel started. During the quarrel; the applicant assaulted the victim Ram Kishan by an axe causing an injury on his right foot. The FIR was lodged at Police Station, Jairon and the victim Ram Kishan was sent to the hospital for his medico legal examination and treatment. Ultimately, it was found that fracture was caused to the victim Ram Kishan on his fourth toe of right foot.
3. The applicant abjured his guilt but no specific plea was taken by him but, he has stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter. However, Ramesh (DW1) was examined as a defence witness.
4. The learned JMFC, Orcha after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted the applicant for offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C and sentenced as mentioned above whereas the appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed in toto.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the first offender who has faced the trial, appeal and revision since last 19 years. He remained in the custody for 21 days and injury caused to a very small bone of the victim, which was not a vital part of the body and therefore, looking to such circumstances, the applicant may not be sent to the jail again. 3 Criminal Revision No.793/1999 7. If entire submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties are considered then it would be apparent that the applicant does not challenge the conviction directed against him. Looking to the evidence of the eye witnesses, FIR Ex.D/1 and medical evidence given by the doctor, it is apparent that it was the applicant who voluntarily assaulted the victim by an axe causing him a grievous injury. Under such circumstances, no interference can be done on the concurrent findings given by both the Courts below conviction. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the first offender and therefore, he could be given an advantage for the sentence. The applicant faced the trial, appeal and revision for last 18 to 19 years. The victim sustained a single injury which was not on some vital part of the body. A fracture of toe was found on the right foot of the victim. The applicant remained in the custody for 21 days according to the report prepared by the office. Under such circumstances, where the applicant was the first offender, it is a fit case in which the sentence may be reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody. However, some fine may be additionally imposed.
8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the revision filed by the applicant is hereby partly allowed. The conviction directed by the Courts below is hereby maintained but the sentence is reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody. However, fine amount is 4 Criminal Revision No.793/1999 enhanced from a sum of Rs.300/- to Rs.3000/-. The applicant is directed to deposit the remaining amount before the trial Court within two months from today failing which he shall undergo for six months rigorous imprisonment. If fine of Rs.3000/- is deposited then a sum of Rs.2500/- be given to the victim Ram Kishan s/o Ritu Badhai r/o Village Tatarpura, Police Station Jairom, District Tikamgarh by way of a compensation.
9. The applicant is on bail. His presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
10. Copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below along with their records for information and compliance. The trial Court is directed to comply with the order and if fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated period then a warrant of arrest be issued against the applicant for execution of default sentence. (N.K.Gupta) Judge 26.02.2013 bina