Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bachcha @ Rajendra Balmik vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2015
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH
PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1399/2006
Bachcha @ Rajendra Balmik
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
...........................................................................................................
For the appellant : Shri G.S. Thakur, Advocate, for the
Panel of High Court Legal Services
Committee.
For the respondent: Shri S. S. Chouhan, Dy.G.A.
...........................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on the 18th day of March, 2015) The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 6.7.2006 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST. No.74/2006 whereby, the appellant has been convicted of offence under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C and sentenced to a fine of Rs.500/- and two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. Fine amount has already been deposited.
2. The prosecutions case in short, is that, on 2.11.2005 at about 10.15 p.m, the complainant Vinod (PW1) was present in his house situated at Bapu Nagar, Jabalpur. The co-accused Monu @ Lalit had passed from a way near the house of the complainant and he though that Anil, brother of the complainant, was abusing 2 him. Monu has started abusing Anil and assaulted him causing injuries to victim Anil. The complainant Vinod Kumar tried to save his brother Anil then Monu gave a blow of knife in his abdomen. Vinod Kumar had lodged an FIR Ex.P/1 at Police Station, Ranjhi. He was sent for his medico legal examination and treatment. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed.
3. The appellant Bachha @ Rajendra abjured his guilt. He took a plea that he was falsely implicated in the crime. However, no defence evidence was adduced.
4. The Additional Sessions Judge after considering the prosecution's evidence, acquitted the appellant from the charge of offence under Section 307 of I.P.C but, convicted and sentenced him for offences as mentioned above.
5. Since the appellant is in jail and no one was appearing for him, Shri G.S. Thakur, Advocate from the Panel of High Court Legal Services Committee who, has a vast experience in dealing with the criminal cases was appointed to argue the matter on behalf of the appellant and thereafter, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that a connected appeal is also pending in the case and if merits of the case are considered then the connected appeal would be affected adversely. The appellant who is in custody submits that his sentence may be reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody and therefore, matter may be considered only on the subject of sentence.
3
7. So far as the sentence is concerned, it appears that for offence under Section 323 of I.P.C., the appellant was sentenced with fine of Rs.500/-. That amount has already been deposited and therefore, no further leniency can be taken for that offence. It is true that the appellant was aged 18 years at the time of incident. He was not the main accused. It is not alleged against the appellant that he had any weapon in his hand. Under these circumstances, he could be released on probation but, at present he has already remained in the custody for 8 months and 26 days and therefore, it would be proper that his sentence of offence under section 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C may be reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody.
8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby partly allowed. His conviction of offence under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C is hereby maintained but, jail sentence is reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody. No change in the fine amount.
9. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information whereas, record of the trial Court be annexed in connected Criminal Appeal No.1325/2006.
10. An intimation be given to the jail authorities that the applicant Bachcha @ Rajendra Balmik is not required in the present case and if he is not required in any other case then he may be released.
(N.K.GUPTA)
JUDGE
bina 18.3.2015
1
bina