Bana & three Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This criminal revision under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the applicants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.2.2020 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Multai District Betul in Criminal Appeal No.211/2015 arising out of the judgment dated 25.7.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Multai District Betul in Criminal Case No.579/2014 whereby the applicants were convicted under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.250/- each with default clause.

As the learned counsel for the applicants is pressing the instant revision only on the ground of sentence, it is submitted that the applicants have been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and they are in incarceration since 11.2.2020 and as such in all they have already completed 6 months and

15 days' sentence. It is further submitted that looking to the injuries caused to the complainant and the fact that the incident has taken place on the spur of moment, the applicants have already suffered the sentence commensurate to the offence committed by them.

On the other hand learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the applicants and has submitted that the applicants have been convicted under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to one year's RI only, which cannot be said to be excessive and as such no case for interference is made out.

On due consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the record this Court finds that the incident in the present case took place on 12.5.2014 at around 8 O'clock in the evening when complainant Pancham was having his dinner inside his house premises and at that time the accused/ applicant No.1 Bana who was also having dinner in his premises, started arguments with the complainant Pancham and then he went to the village and also fetched with him the other applicants No.2, 3 and 4, namely Mahendra S/o Fagna Ivne, Fagna S/o Summan Ivne and Mahesh S/o Fagna Ivne and all of them assaulted the complainant Pancham. It is also alleged that applicant No.2 Mahendra was holding an axe in his hand and also caused injuries with the same, whereas other accused persons were having sticks with which they also assaulted the complainant.

The learned Judge of the trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record has convicted the applicants under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced them to one year's RI with default clause. In appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction before the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Multai Distict Betul the same has also been dismissed on 11.2.2020, which is under challenge before this Court.

From the record it is found that the FIR in the present case was lodged on 13.5.2014 at around 11 O'clock in the morning in respect of the incident, which took place on 12.5.2014 at around 8 O'clock in the night and the reason for delay is stated to be the night and unavailability of any conveyance from the village to the Police Station. The FIR has been lodged by complainant Pancham himself and it has been registered under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC only. However, after the complainant was medically examined, in his X-ray it was found that he had a fracture on his left clavicle. Dr. Ashok Narware (PW-5) has also stated that the complainant had as many as five injuries on various parts of his body, most of which were scratches only, however, the injury No.3 was on his left palm where an incised wound was found ad-measuring 0.5 x 3 cm and his right shoulder was in pain.

So far as the appreciation of evidence is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence to come to a conclusion that the applicants were the assailants and have rightly been convicted under Section 325/34 of IPC. However, so far as the sentence part is concerned, looking to the injuries sustained by the complainant and the fact that the applicants have already undergone the total period of 6 months and 15 days' jail sentence out of one year's RI, this Court is of the considered opinion that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest of justice would be served if the applicants' sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone by them, which is subject to deposit of fine.

As a result, the present revision stands partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. However, it is made clear that the applicants would be required to pay the fine which has been imposed by the trial Court and thus subject to the deposit of fine the applicants shall be released forthwith from the jail.

A certified copy of this order be sent to the learned courts below for information and compliance.