Judgment:
1 Cr.A. No.1272/1998 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Hon’ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1272/1998 .........Appellants:
1. Munnalal alias Babulal S/o. Ramdayal Brahman 2. Kailash alias Kalloo S/o. Ramdayal Brahman. Both R/o. Village Bachhouda, P.S. Prithvipur, District Tikamgarh (M.P.) Versus .......Respondent : State of Madhya Pradesh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Mohd. Amzad, Advocate for appellants. Shri Amit Pandey, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDGMENT
(06.11.2012) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.05.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge Tikamgarh in Special Case No.85/1997 convicting the first appellant under Section 325/34 IPC and second appellant under section 325 IPC and thereby sentencing them to 18 months RI and and fine of `1500/- and in default further 4 months RI, the appellants have taken shelter of this Court by preferring this appeal under 2 Cr.A. No.1272/1998 Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Facts in detail are already narrated in para 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment and for convenience they are not being reproduced here. Suffice it to say that present appellants were tried for charges punishable under Section 341, 294, 325, 325/34 IPC and also under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “Act”.), however, learned Trial Court did not find the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act proved against both the appellants and eventually acquitted them from that charge. Learned Trial Court further did not find proved charges under Section 341, 294 IPC against appellants and eventually acquitted them from those charges, however, first appellant Munnalal has been found guilty of committing offence under Section 325/34 IPC while second appellant Kailash was found guilty of offence under Section 325 IPC and both of them were sentenced as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
3. In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants assailing their judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
4. The contention of learned counsel for appellants is that looking to the evidence placed on record it is not proved that appellants have committed any offence. Alternative submission has also been put-forth by him that if this Court comes to the conclusion 3 Cr.A. No.1272/1998 that appellants have committed the offence, in that case since incident occurred 15 years ago, it would not be fruitful to send the appellants behind the bars again. It is also contended by him that both the appellants have suffered jail sentence of 5 days and this would be the appropriate punishment for them for the offence which they have committed.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor argued in support of the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of this appeal..
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be allowed in part.
7. In the present case injured is Ghanshyam (PW2). He has categorically stated in his testimony that first appellant scolded upon injured and provoked second appellant to cause injury. First appellant caught hold the injured so that he may not flee away. Thereafter second appellant dealt blunt side of axe on his hand, as a result of which he sustained bony injury. This witness was cross- examined at length but nothing has been carved out from his testimony. Testimony of this witness has been further corroborated by evidence of MLC doctor M.K. Jain (PW5) and his MLC report is Ex.P/6 in which he has found as many as 5 injuries on the person of injured and all of them were caused by hard and blunt object. Injured was referred for x-ray and Radiologist Dr. S.K. Khare (PW1) 4 Cr.A. No.1272/1998 found the fracture upon right ulna bone of the injured, hence evidence of injured is also corroborated by medical evidence. Hence, I am of the view that Trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellant under section 325/34 and 325 IPC.
8. I shall not advert to alternative submission put-forth by learned counsel for appellants. The incident had occurred in the year 1996 i.e. more than 16 years ago and the appellants have been directed to suffer jail sentence of 18 months RI. They have already suffered jail sentence of 5 days and it would not be fruitful to send them behind the bar after near about 16 years. However, the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1500/- to Rs.7000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand) each. Let the balance amount shall be deposited by each appellant on or before 31.3.2013 in the Trial Court, failing which they shall further undergo one year RI. Learned Trial Court is hereby directed to do the needful in this regard. The bail bonds of this appellants shall stand cancelled only after they deposit entire amount of fine on or before said date.
9. Appellants are hereby directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 17.12.2012 and shall deposit the balance amount of fine. If appellants are unable to deposit the balance amount on this date or deposit only part of the entire amount, learned Trial Court shall give a date to them to deposit the remaining amount and if on that date also, the appellants fail to 5 Cr.A. No.1272/1998 deposit the amount, a further date may be given but that date should not exceed beyond 31.3.2013 and by this date appellants should deposit the balance fine amount, failing which they shall undergo the jail sentence of one year RI. In case appellant fails to appear before learned Trial Court on 17.12.2012, the Trial Court shall issue notice to their surety and may pass necessary order against them in accordance with law. After depositing the amount of fine or sending the appellants to jail, the Trial Court shall intimate the Registry of this Court. The Registry is hereby directed to send the original bail bonds papers to learned Trial Court and a photocopy thereof be retained in this file. It is further made clear that after entire amount of fine is deposited by the appellants, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled 10. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed in part. The conviction of appellants under Section 325/34 and 325 IPC respectively is hereby affirmed, however, the sentence is hereby modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. (A.K. Shrivastava) Judge SS