Full Judgment
1 Criminal Appeal No.2242/1996 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.2242/1996 Dayaram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present :Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri S.K. Dixit, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 10th day of October, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 29.11.1996 passed by the 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge Sagar, Camp Rehli in S.T. No.163/93, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced for three years' R.I. with fine of `500/-. In default of payment, five months' R.I. in addition was directed.
2. The prosecution’s case in short is that on 21.3.1993 at about 2:45 p.m. in the afternoon, the appellant assaulted his wife Siyarani by a Katarna on her neck. Thereafter, he assaulted on her chin. On hearing her shouts, the witness 2 Criminal Appeal No.2242/1996 Kashiram Patel (PW-1) reached to the spot. He tried to save the victim Siyarani but in the meantime, the appellant also assaulted by the Katarna to Preetam (PW-5), elder brother of the complainant Kashiram. Sheelrani (PW-4), Premrani (PW-2), Laxmikant (PW-9) etc. came to the spot and they saved the victims. Thereafter, the appellant ran away from the spot. The complainant Kashiram had lodged an FIR Ex.P/1 at Police Station Garha Kota, District Sagar. The victims Preetam and Siyarani were directed for their medico legal examination. Dr. Smt. Kiran Singh (PW-3) examined the victims Preetam and Siyarani and gave her reports Ex.P/2 and P/3 respectively. One incised wound was found to the victim Preetam on his fronto parietal region, he was unconscious and therefore he was referred for radiological examination and treatment. Dr. Smt. Kiran Singh found two incised wounds to the victim Siyarani. One was near the left ear, on her jaw and second one was on her chin. The victim Siyarani was also referred for radiological examination and sent for treatment. Dr. Kiran had opined that the injuries caused to the victim Siyarani were grave. Dr. M.K. Choubey (PW-12) after radiologically examination found that there was a fracture to the victim Preetam on back of his ear. A report Ex.P/15 was given by Dr. M.K. Choubey. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the J.M.F.C. Rehli, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Sagar and ultimately, it was transferred to the 3rd Additional Sessions 3 Criminal Appeal No.2242/1996 Judge, Sagar.
3. The appellant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea in the case, but he has stated that he was falsely implicated due to enmity. In defence Dhanu (DW-1) was examined.
4. The learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, acquitted the appellant from the charge of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, but convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was a young youth of 22 years of age at the time the incident. He has faced the trial and appeal for last 19 years. not his life is settled and under such circumstances, it is prayed that he may not be sent to the jail again. The appellant is convicted only for the injuries caused to his brother Preetam. The victim is relative to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance upon the judgment passed by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of “Ravi s/o Bisen Kachhi Vs. State of M.P.”
. [1992(2) M.P.L.J.Note 10]..
7. On the other hand, the learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that the conviction as well as the sentence directed 4 Criminal Appeal No.2242/1996 by the trial Court appears to be appropriate.
8. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the appellant does not challenge the conviction directed against him, whereas he has simply challenged the sentence. It is true that he was only 22 years of age at the time of the incident. He gave a blow to his brother Preetam causing him a grave injury. However, no second blow was given by the appellant. He remained in the custody for 19 days and he has faced the trial and appeal for last 18-19 years. His life is settled. Under such circumstances, in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Ravi (supra), it would be proper, not to send the appellant to the jail again. However, a heavy fine is to be directed against the appellant.
9. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby partly allowed. The conviction directed for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC is hereby maintained, but the sentence is reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody, whereas fine is enhanced from a sum of `500/- to the sum of `7,000/-. The appellant is directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo for one year's R.I.
10. At present, the appellant is on bail. His presence is 5 Criminal Appeal No.2242/1996 no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds etc. shall stand discharged.
11. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information and compliance. (N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE 10 10.2012 pnkj