Full Judgment
1 Cr.R. No.169/2011 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA CRIMINAL REVISION NO.169/2011 APPLICANTS :
1. Kamta S/o. Girdhari Sanodiya, 2. Ramli alias Ramdas, S/o. Bhagchand Both R/o. Village Khairitak, P.S. Seoni, Tehsil and District Seoni (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicants by Shri Surendra Patel, Advocate. Respondent/State by Shri Anubhav Jain, Public Prosecutor. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER
(17.09.2013) This revision application under Section 397/401 of Cr PC has been filed by the applicants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.01.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Seoni dismissing the criminal appeal No.109/2010 and thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial 2 Cr.R. No.169/2011 Magistrate Seoni in Criminal Case No.1982/2004 convicting the applicants under Section 325/34 of IPC and thereby sentencing them to suffer imprisonment of one year SI with fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, further SI of 3 months.
2. The applicant no.1 Kamta jumped the bail and is not appearing on the dates given to him.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that looking to the evidence of the injured, offence under section 325/34 IPC is not proved. However, I do not find any merit in this contention. On going through the evidence of injured Matvar Singh (PW1) this Court finds that both the applicants were quarreling with one Veer Singh when this witness intervened both the accused dealt iron rod blow over his right leg resulting into fracture of his tibia bone. The evidence of this witness is corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Prabhakar Sirsam (PW3) who found one abrasion on frontal region of right side of head and a fracture on the right tibia bone. Hence, I am of the view that learned two Courts below did not commit any error in holding that the applicants caused injury to injured as a result of which he sustained fracture on his right leg. Thus, the conviction of applicants under Section 325/34 of IPC is hereby affirmed.
4. It has been then contended by learned counsel for 3 Cr.R. No.169/2011 applicants that the applicants have already suffered 7 months jail sentence out of total jail sentence of one year and this would be the appropriate punishment for the offence which they had committed.
5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the incident had occurred on 24.10.2004 near about more than 8 years ago, therefore, it would not be fruitful to send back the applicants behind the bars again Thus, they are sentenced for the period they had already undergone with further stipulations that in addition to amount of fine Rs.500/- they shall deposit Rs.20,000/- more towards fine (Rs.10,000/- by each applicant). Let the balance amount of fine be deposited by the applicants in the Trial Court on or before 31.10.2013. Let entire amount of fine Rs.20,500/- be paid to injured Matvar Singh, s/o. Hardev Singh, resident of Madai, Police Station Lakhnadon, District Seoni (M.P.) who appeared as PW1 in the Trial Court towards compensation under Section 357 Cr PC. Further it is made clear that in case the applicants fail to deposit the said amount on or before 31.10.2013, they shall further undergo remaining jail sentence as awarded by learned Trial Court and affirmed by learned appellate Court. The applicants shall appear before learned Trial Court on 07.10.2013. It is further made clear that if the applicants fail to appear on 07.10.2013 before learned Trial Court, the Trial Court shall issue arrest warrant against them 4 Cr.R. No.169/2011 and shall also take action against their sureties by forfeiting the bail amount. In the present case, applicant no.1 Kamta is absconding, if he fails to appear on 07.10.2013 learned Trial Court shall issue arrest warrant against him. It has been informed that bail amount of this accused has already been forfeited, Hence, on his failure to appear on 07.10.2013 before learned Trial Court, arrest warrant shall be issued against him and he shall be directed to serve out the jail sentence as awarded by learned Trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court to him.
6. The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is hereby directed to send the record posthaste to learned Trial Court so as to reach that Court much prior to 07.10.2013 alongwith original bail bond papers to enable learned Trial Court to take appropriate action in terms of this order. The photocopy of bail bond papers shall be kept in the record of this Court.
7. Resultantly, this revision application succeeds in part. The impugned judgment of conviction of applicants under Section 325/34 IPC passed by learned Trial Court, which has been affirmed by learned Appellate Court is hereby affirmed. However, their sentence is modified as indicated hereinabove. (A.K. Shrivastava) Judge 5 Cr.R. No.169/2011 17.09.2013 SS