AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.K. Seth
1.This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas u/s 324/34 of Penal Code sentencing appellants to two year rigorous imprisonment.
Appellants were charged and tried for offences punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC. By the impugned judgment, trial Court has found them guilty and accordingly awarded jail sentences as mentioned above.
Shortly stated prosecution story was that on 22.11.1991, appellants and victim were watching cricket match and on a trivial issue there was a fight between appellant Bablu and victim Pradeep. During the fight appellants caught hold of Pradeep and appellant Insaf suddenly took out a knife and assaulted Pradeep. The blow landed on the hip portion. Incident was reported in Police Station and criminal case u/s 307/34 was registered against appellants. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. Appellants denied the charges, therefore they were put to trial.
Learned trial Court on consideration of prosecution evidence led in at the time of trial, held that appellants were not guilty of offence punishable u/s 307/34 instead found them guilty of offence punishable u/s 324/34 of the Penal Code and sentenced each of them to 2 years R.I.
The only point canvassed before us in the appeal is on the question of sentence. Learned Counsel submitted that on the date offence, appellants were young persons aged about 2022 years, and the incident took place suddenly when they were watching the cricket match. He submitted that no useful purpose would be served by sending appellants to jail at this distant point of time, therefore, they be let off with the jail sentence already under gone by them. He further submitted that appellant No. 3 is in government job and jail sentence would now cause grave prejudice to his job therefore a sympatric view of the whole affair may taken.
After hearing rival submissions and going through record we find force in the contention. The appeal is therefore partly allowed and having regard to the circumstances of the case including nature of offence and passage of time, we direct that instead of undergoing the remaining part of the jail sentence, appellants No.1 shall pay a fine of Rs. 5,000; whereas appellants No. 2 and 4 shall pay fine of Rs. 3000/each. In default, they will undergo three months'' R.I. Appellant No. 3 shall be released on his entering into a bond of Rs. 5,000 with one surety for keeping peace and of good behaviour for a period of one year from the date of execution of bond. He shall also pay Rs. 3,000/as compensation to Pradeep failing which appellant No. 3 shall undergo three months R.I. as default sentence. Pradeep be also paid a sum of Rs. 6,000/as compensation, out of the total amount of fine payable by appellants No. 1, 2 and 4.
The appeal stands disposed of with the modification as directed above.