Hukum and Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon''ble Shri A.K. Sharma J.

The appellants have filed this appeal u/s 374 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dt. 27.1.1998 passed in S.T. No. 349/1987 by learned Vth additional Sessions Judge Indore, M.P,. whereby appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and fine Rs. 2500/-each with default stipulation. They have been also convicted for the offence punishable u/s 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year each. The brief facts of the case are that, on 23.6.1997 at about 7 am Bharatsingh was going on Motorcycle with Peerulal, Kamal was also going on Scooter with him. When they reached near the house of appellants, appellants who were armed with Sword and Tomy stopped them and started beating them due to which injury of Sword was sustained by Bharatsingh on his head. Kamal also sustained injury of Sword on his head. On report, Police has registered a case and filed challan against the appellants and learned Trial Court after trial of the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 307/34 and Section 341 of IPC convicted them for the offence punishable u/s 326 read with Section 34 and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of the impugned judgment.

Being aggrieved by the judgment, appellants have filed this appeal on the ground that learned Trial Court is not justified in passing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentenced awarded to them is too harsh. Further appellant Hemraj has also sustained injuries and report of which has been registered at Crime No. 268/1987 alleging that Kamal has inflicted Sword blow on the head of appellant Hemraj.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that although there are discrepancies in the evidence and learned Trial Court has not considered the defence of self-defence in favour of the appellants and failed to consider the fact that why the victims were carrying sharp edged weapons like Sword with them. He is only challenging the sentence awarded by learned Trial Court which is too harsh. He further submitted that appellants are facing trial since the year 1987, therefore, the sentence already undergone by them is sufficient to meet the ends of justice looking to the nature of the injuries sustained by victims.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has cited judgment of this Court in the matter of Shaitan Singh v. State of M.P. MP. Weekly Notes 2004(1) 364 Note (150) in which it has been held with regard to the offence punishable u/s 326/34 of IPC accused persons not proved to have committed any offence previously and not abused their bail and faced trial for seven years. 5 days sentence suffered by them is sufficient with fine of Rs. 2500/-each.

In the present case, appellants are first offenders. Appellant Hemraj has been in custody from 24.6.1987 to 9.7.1987 during trial. Appellant Hukum and Bharatsingh have been in custody from 17.7.1987 to 21.7.1987 and appellant Ashok Kumar has been in custody from 3.8.1987 to 5.8.1987 during trial and after passing of impugned judgment on 27.1.1998 appellants have been in custody till 18.2.1998, therefore, the appellants have been in custody for about one month and they have been facing the trial since the year 1987. The long period of about 25 years, it will be of no use to send them again to the Jail.

Therefore, appeal is partly allowed. The sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to already undergone by them maintaining the conviction and fine amount which has already been deposited by them. Bail bonds of appellants are discharged.