Sambha @ Shyam Rao Pawar vs State of M.P.

U.C. Maheshwari, J.—The applicant has preferred this revision u/s 397 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.5.1999, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Criminal Appeal No. 15/98 affirming the judgment dated 7.1.1998 passed by JMFC Sausar in Criminal Case No. 294/92 convicting the applicant u/s 326 of IPC sentenced for RI three years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of depositing the fine for further six months RI. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on 14.6.1992, the complainant/victim Shivlal lodged a first information report at P. S. Bichhua contending that on the date of the incident the present applicant was doing the agricultural work for Soyabin crops on some field. On asking him by the victim not to do such work in such filed in response of it the applicant gave a blow of Axe on his right shoulder, resultantly, he sustained the injuries with bleeding. After registration of offence the victim was sent to the hospital, where on medical examination his MLC report was prepared and advised for x-ray. On carrying out the same fracture of clavicle bone in the sustained wound was revealed. On completion of investigation the applicant was charge sheeted for the offence u/s 326 of IPC.

After framing the charge trial was held, on appreciation of evidence the applicant was held guilty u/s 326 of IPC and punished with the above mentioned punishment. On filing the appeal the same was dismissed by affirming the judgment of the trial Court, on which the applicant has come to this Court with this revision.

Shri Chandrahas Dubey, learned counsel of the applicant after taking me through the record of the Courts below along with the impugned judgment instead to make any submission on merits holding the applicant guilty for the offence u/s 326 of IPC, has made his limited submission that taking into consideration the factum of compromise between the parties by adopting some lenient view the awarded jail sentence of the applicant be reduced up to the period for which he has already undergone between 29.5.1999 the date of the impugned judgment of the appellate Court till passing the order of suspension of his remaining jail sentence vide dated 11,10,1999 i.e. four months and twelve days and also 32 days for which the applicant was remained in judicial custody in pendency of trial between 24.7.1992 to 26.8.1992 and prayed to allow the revision accordingly.

On the other hand by justifying the impugned judgment as well as conviction and sentence of the applicant under the aforesaid section learned P.L. Ku. Savita Choudhary, said that looking to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed by the applicant with the victim for which sufficient evidence is available in the record and such offence being not made compoundable under the provision of Section 320 of Cr. P. C., the impugned judgment does not require any consideration at this stage either for acquitting the applicant or reducing his jail sentence as prayed by the applicant''s counsel and prayed for dismissal of this revision.

Having heard the counsel keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone through the record of the Courts below. I have not found any perversity or error in appreciation of evidence by any of the Courts below whereby the applicant has been convicted under the aforesaid section, so in such premises there is no scope in the matter to extend the benefit of acquittal to the applicant. Hence, till this extent the findings of the courts below are hereby affirmed.

Coming to consider the submission of the applicant''s counsel to reduce the jail sentence is concerned, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Ram Pujan and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, , I have found some substance in it. Although in the aforesaid cited case of Section 326 of IPC the Apex Court has not permitted the parties to compound the offence but taking into consideration the impact of compromise between the parties the awarded jail sentence was reduced up to the period for which accused was already undergone. In the case at hand also the parties have entered into a compromise but the same could not be allowed because the offence of Section 326 is not made compoundable u/s 320 of Cr.P.C. But in view of the aforesaid law of land taking into consideration the factum of compromise, in the available circumstances of the case as stated above, I deem fit to reduce the jail sentence of the applicant from three years to the aforesaid period for which he has already undergone i.e. near about five months twenty days by maintaining the amount of fine as imposed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court with its alternate punishment in default of depositing the fine amount.

Therefore, by affirming the findings of the Courts below holding conviction against the applicant u/s 326 of IPC, this revision is allowed in part and the awarded jail sentence of three years with fine of Rs. 500/- is hereby reduced up to the aforesaid period of five months and twenty days for which the applicant has already undergone by maintaining the amount of fine with its alternate punishment in default of depositing the same. Till this extent the impugned judgment is modified while other findings of the same are affirmed. The bail bonds of the applicant are discharged. The revision is allowed in part as indicated above.