Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Durga Prasad and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.

Durga Prasad and ors. vs The State of M.P.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided May 12, 2011
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/919271

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Appeal No. 994/1999.
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 323

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Durga Prasad and ors.

Respondent

The State of M.P.

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 323

Excerpt

.....case no.158/96 in which appellants have been 1convicted for alleged offence punishable under section 323 ipc and sentenced to r.i.for six months and fine of rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine appellants to further undergo r.i. for one month. 2. learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the finding of conviction of the appellant but confined his arguments only on the point of sentence. so there is no need to consider the facts of the case. 3. learned counsel for the appellants submitted that out of 13 persons who were tried, these three appellants have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, the appellants are first offender and there is no criminal record against them. the incident is of the year 1993. therefore, their case may be considered 2sympathetically. he submits that alleged offence under section 323 ipc is punishable with fine alone also. 4. on the contrary, learned counsel for the state has supported the judgment delivered by the trial court and contended that no interference is called for in this appeal. 5. keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and submissions made by the parties, the interest of justice would be served if the amount of fine is enhanced in lieu of sentence.  consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. the conviction of the appellants by the trial court is hereby maintained. however, instead of jail sentence, i impose extra fine amount of rs.1,000/-(rs. one thousand only) on each appellant. the said amount be deposited in the trial 3court within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the appellants shall undergo r.i. for one month. the appellants are on bail, in case the fine amount is deposited by them, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.

Full Judgment

1. Perused PUD dated 30/04/11 in which it has been shown that appellants have failed to appear before the trial Court on 23.04.11.

Learned counsel for appellants submits that matter may be heard finally today to which learned PL for State has no objection.

Heard finally.

This is an appeal preferred by the appellants feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.03.99, delivered by the then Special Judge, Raisen in Special Case No.158/96 in which appellants have been 1convicted for alleged offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to R.I.for six months and fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine appellants to further undergo R.I. for one month.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the finding of conviction of the appellant but confined his arguments only on the point of sentence. So there is no need to consider the facts of the case.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that out of 13 persons who were tried, these three appellants have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, the appellants are first offender and there is no criminal record against them. The incident is of the year 1993. Therefore, their case may be considered 2sympathetically. He submits that alleged offence under Section 323 IPC is punishable with fine alone also.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment delivered by the trial Court and contended that no interference is called for in this appeal.

5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and submissions made by the parties, the interest of justice would be served if the amount of fine is enhanced in lieu of sentence.  Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants by the trial Court is hereby maintained.

However, instead of jail sentence, I impose extra fine amount of Rs.1,000/-(Rs. One Thousand Only) on each appellant. The said amount be deposited in the trial 3Court within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the appellants shall undergo R.I. for one month. The appellants are on bail, in case the fine amount is deposited by them, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial