Delan Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Subhash Kakade, J.—With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally.

This criminal revision u/s 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the Judgment dated 04.03.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 155/09 by learned 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, (FTC), Damoh whereby the judgment of conviction dated 13.11.09 passed by learned JMFC, Damoh in Criminal Case No. 106/09 u/s 325 of IPC and sentence of one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation against the petitioner has been confirmed.

The prosecution case in short is that on 23.10.04 when complainant after cutting the grass kept it on the Medh, a dispute arose between the complainant and petitioner. It is alleged that petitioner assaulted the complainant by lathi due to which complainant sustained injuries. A report was lodged and after investigation petitioner aged 50 years at that time was charge sheeted and charge punishable u/s 325 IPC has been framed. The defence of petitioner was of false implication.

In order to bring home the charges against petitioner the prosecution examined six witnesses and placed FIR on record. The defence did not examine any witness.

The learned Courts below found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable u/s 325 of the IPC and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid, hence this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Courts below have committed an error in holding the petitioner guilty u/s 325 of IPC. It is also submitted that learned trial Court committed grave error in overlooking that there are material contradictions, omissions in depositions of prosecution witnesses. Fine amount has already been deposited. Finally, it is prayed that revision be allowed and the substantive sentence should be confined to the period already undergone by the applicant in respect of the offence punishable u/s 325 of IPC.

Per contra, learned PL appearing for respondent/State that after due appreciation of prosecution evidence, the learned Courts below have found the offence proved against the petitioner which requires no interference.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the impugned judgments passed by learned Courts below and statements of prosecution witnesses particularly complainant Bhagirath (PW. 1) and supporting medical evidence of Dr. S.K. Jain (PW. 4) and Dr. R.K. Rawat (PW. 5), and on basis of documentary evidence Ex. P/3 and P/4, I am of the view that no error has been committed by learned Courts below in recording the guilty of the petitioner as mentioned hereinafter and in convicting him for offence punishable u/s 325 of IPC and sentencing him for R.I. of one year with fine of Rs. 500/-.

Now the question arises that as to how a balance should be struck and maintained in regard to the sentence.

More than nine years have been elapsed from the date of incident i.e. 23.10.2004. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner was arrested on 04.03.2010 and was released on bail by this Court on 19.04.10. In this way the petitioner has already suffered the jail sentence of more than one and half month and at present he is running in his seventies. It is pertinent to mention here that no bone injury is found on the front parietal region of the complainant.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that in the instant case, more important sentence should be that the petitioner should be sentenced to the period already undergone by him as against R.I. for one year.

In the result upholding the judgments of conviction recorded by learned Courts below, I reduce the sentence awarded to the petitioner to the sentence already undergone by him. The revision, to that extent, is allowed and the impugned judgment is modified. In this case, the petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.