Ramkishor Chaudhri vs State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 11.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagod in S.T. No. 436/2009, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable u/s 325 of IPC and sentenced for 5 years'' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo for 1 month''s additional rigorous imprisonment. Prosecution''s case, in short, is that, on 15.3.2009, Dr. Devendra Singh of the District Hospital, Satna had sent an intimation to the Police Station Singhpur, District Satna that one Gaura Choudhary was brought to the hospital in an injured condition. On requisition of the police, a medical check up was done of the deceased Gaura Choudhary and his statements were recorded. It was found that when the deceased Gaura Choudhary was taking snacks in his house then, the appellant Ramkishor Chaudhri came to his house and assaulted him by sticks. Some of the injuries caused to the victim were found grievous. The officials of the Police Station Singhpur had registered a case against the appellant and an investigation was initiated. On 11.5.2009, the deceased Gaura Choudhary died and therefore, a Panchayatnama Lash was prepared and body was sent for the post-mortem. A report, Ex.P/13 was prepared after the post-mortem. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Nagod, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Satna and thereafter, it was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagod.

The appellant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea in defence but, he has stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter. However, Phulli Chand (D.W.1), Munnalal Kushwaha (D.W.2) and Parwati Choudhary (D.W.3) were examined as defence witnesses.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, acquitted the appellant from the charges of offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC but, convicted him for offence punishable u/s 325 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant remained in the custody for more than 2 years and 5 months and looking to his overt-act, his custody period appears to be a sufficient sentence against him and therefore, sentence may be reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, it appears that the appellant does not challenge the conviction directed against him. In the present case, it is alleged against the appellant that he assaulted the victim by a stick, causing him fractures of right humorous bone, left humorous bone and left tibia and fibula bone. Hence, it is alleged that the appellant caused 4 fractures to the deceased. It appears that the appellant caused injuries on legs and hands of the victim. No fracture was caused to a bone, which was covering the vital part of the body. The punishment is to be adjudicated upon the overt-act of the appellant. If he was acquitted from the charges of offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC then, he should have been sentenced for the offence punishable u/s 325 of IPC only. It is true that the appellant has broken 4 bones of the deceased but, it is also apparent that during the trial, the appellant remained in the custody for 2 years, 5 months and 9 days but, after the sentence, the appellant is still in custody at present and therefore, now his custody period appears to be more than 3 years. Under such circumstances, looking to the overt act of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 325 of IPC, he can be sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of approximately 2-3 years and therefore, he has already undergone in the custody for a period more than the sufficient sentence for his overt-act. Under such circumstances, the sentence passed against the appellant can be reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby partly allowed. Conviction directed for offence punishable u/s 325 of IPC is hereby maintained but, his sentence is reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody. There is no change in the fine amount.

Registry is directed to issue a supersession warrant with the direction that if the appellant had deposited the entire fine amount then, he be released forthwith, otherwise default sentence may be executed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court with its record for information and compliance.