Shankar S/O Kuria And Another vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The appellants have filed this present appeal challenging the judgment dated 25/04/2006 delivered by IV ASJ, Ratlam in S.T. No.138/2005 whereby convicted the appellant No.1 under Section 307, 353 of IPC sentencing him to undergo 5 years RI, 2 years RI with fine of Rs.200/-, Rs.200/- and convicted the appellant No.2 under Section 353 of IPC sentencing her to undergo 1 year RI with fine of Rs.200/-, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

Facts in brief are that on 30/06/2005 when Pradeep Yadav alongwith other officials discharging their official duties, the appellants came there armed with Axe and Stone, assaulted the complainant by appellant No.1 by means of Axe and appellant No.2 by means of Stone, resulting with they sustained injuries. Thereafter FIR was registered. The police registered the case under Section 307, 336 of IPC. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court. Prosecution has examined as many as 21 witnesses and the appellants were charged, tried and convicted as stated in para 1 above.

The appellants have preferred this appeal on several grounds but during course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he does not want to press the appeal on merits. His only contention is that the sentence of the appellants be reduced to the period already undergone. It is submitted that appellants are first offender and has no criminal antecedents. Neither prior to the alleged incident nor thereafter any criminal case is ever registered against them. Appellant No.1 was in custody for a period of about 5 years approximately i.e. (15/07/2005 to 15/06/2006, 02/01/2007 to 15/05/2009, 04/12/2009 to 20/05/2011 and 05/07/2013 to 13/08/2014) and appellant No.2 was in custody for a period of 1 month and 21 days, out of the sentence awarded to them, therefore, their jail term be reduced to the period already undergone, specially keeping in view the long pendency of the appeal since 2006.

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that after due appreciation of the evidence on record, learned Court below has found the appellants guilty for the offence and no illegality has shown against the appellants. In such circumstances, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment passed in the case of Dharmendra Singh vs. State of M.P. reported in 2012 Cr.L.R. (M.P.) 232, in which the Court has upheld the conviction, however, as the incident is of 17 years old, the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced from three years to three months. Similarly, in the case of Ratiram and another Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2009 Cr.L.R. (M.P.) 92. In this case also, this Court has held that being 17 years old case, sentence reduced to the period already suffered.

In the present case also, the incident took place on 30/06/2005 i.e. more than 13 and half years ago. From perusal of the record, it reveals that the appellant No.1 was in custody for a period of about 5 years approximately i.e. (15/07/2005 to 15/06/2006, 02/01/2007 to 15/05/2009, 04/12/2009 to 20/05/2011 and 05/07/2013 to 13/08/2014) and appellant No.2 was in custody for a period of 1 month and 21 days.

However, considering the fact that the appellant No.1 was in custody for a period of about 5 years approximately i.e. (15/07/2005 to 15/06/2006, 02/01/2007 to 15/05/2009, 04/12/2009 to 20/05/2011 and 05/07/2013 to 13/08/2014) and appellant No.2 was in custody for a period of 1 month and 21 days and have undergone the aforesaid period of sentence and under the circumstance, considering the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants and also considering the nature of the incident, keeping in view the fact that appeal is pending since 2006 and other facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, the ends of justice would be sub-served, if the sentence of the appellants are reduced to the period already undergone. Therefore, I partly allow the appeal by modifying the sentence, I impose sentence to appellant No.1 was in custody for a period of about 5 years approximately i.e. (15/07/2005 to 15/06/2006, 02/01/2007 to 15/05/2009, 04/12/2009 to 20/05/2011 and 05/07/2013 to 13/08/2014) and appellant No.2 for 1 month and 21 days i.e. the period which has already been suffered by the appellants by imposing fine of Rs.2,000/- by appellants, which shall be deposited by them before the concerned trial Court.

The order of the learned trial Court regarding disposal of the case property is hereby confirmed.

With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is partly allowed and disposed off accordingly.

Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned lower Court alongwith the record for its information and compliance.

C.C. as per rules.