Kapoor Chand and Two Others vs State of M.P.

N.K. Gupta, J.—The applicants are convicted for offences punishable u/s 325 read with section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. vide judgment dated 4.10.2012 in Criminal Case No. 2188/2006 and sentenced with one year''s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and three month''s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 300/- respectively. In Criminal Appeal No. 245/2012 the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, District Balaghat vide judgment dated 15.2.2013 did not give any relief to the applicants and the appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments the applicants have preferred the present revision. The prosecution''s case in short is that on 9.11.2004 at about 8.00 p.m. in the evening the complainant Seeta Bai along with her husband Madhu were working in her house situated at Village Kosmara (Police Station Lanji, District Balaghat). The applicants went to the house of the complainant and started abusing her husband. Her husband Madhu came out and thereafter, the applicants assaulted him. The complainant Seeta Bai also went to save her husband and thereafter, she was also assaulted. Seeta Bai and her husband went to the Police Station Lanji where the complainant Seeta Bai had lodged an FIR Ex. P/1. The victims were sent to the Community Health Centre, Lanji where they were examined by Dr. Umesh Dahate (PW9) who gave his reports Exs. P/13 and P/14 for the victims Seeta Bai and Madhu respectively. Dr. Samad (PW7) found that a fracture was caused in the right ulna bone of the victim Madhu. He gave his report Ex. P/5 on the basis of his X-Ray examination. After due investigation a charge sheet was filed before the trial Court.

The applicants abjured their guilt. They did not take any specific plea and therefore, no defence evidence was adduced.

After considering the prosecution''s evidence the learned JMFC, Balaghat convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned above whereas, the appeal filed by the applicants was dismissed in toto.

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants.

The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were the first offender and a quarrel started in a spur of the moment. However, the applicants remained in the custody for more than two months. Under such circumstances, they have learnt a lesson for their crime and therefore, they may not be sent to the jail again.

After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that evidence given by Madhu (PW2) and Seeta Bai (PW3) is duly corroborated by the timely lodged FIR Ex. P/2 and the medical reports proved by Dr. Umesh Dahate (PW9) and Dr. Samad (PW7), it is proved that the applicants assaulted the victims Seeta Bai and Madhu. Out of them Madhu sustained a grievous injury and therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the applicants for offences punishable u/s 325 read with section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 323 read with section 34 of I.P.C.

So far as the sentence is concerned, it is true that the applicants are above 21 years of age and therefore, they are not entitled to get the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. There is no other ground to give benefit to them. However, where the applicants are first offenders and they remained in the custody for more than two months, they have learnt the lesson for their crime. The incident took place in a spur of the moment and therefore, it is not required to keep the applicants in custody for entire one year. It is a fit case in which the sentence may be reduced to the period which they have already undergone in the custody. However, some fine amount may be enhanced.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the revision filed by the applicants is hereby partly allowed. Their conviction u/s 325 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. is hereby maintained but the sentence is reduced to the period which they have already undergone in custody. However, for offence punishable u/s 325 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. the fine amount is enhanced from a sum of Rs. 500 to a sum of Rs. 4000/-. In default of payment of fine the applicants shall undergo for six months rigorous imprisonment in addition. For offence punishable u/s 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. fine amount is enhanced from a sum of Rs. 300 to a sum of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine the applicants shall undergo for three months rigorous imprisonment in addition. The applicants no. 2 and 3 are directed to deposit the fine amount within one month from today before the trial Court. If fine is deposited then a sum of Rs. 5000/- be provided to the victim Madhu whereas a sum of Rs. 1500/- be provided to the victim Seeta Bai by way of a compensation.

The applicants no. 2 and 3 are on bail and therefore, their presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that their bail bonds shall stand discharged if they have deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. The applicant no. 1 is in jail therefore, the office is directed to arrange for supersession warrant so that the applicant no. 1 shall also be released from the jail on deposit of the fine amount. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court as well as the appellate Court along with records.