Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghuvir Singh & Anr. vs State Of M.P. & Ors. Judgement Given By: ... on 30 November, 2013
Criminal Revision No.1303/1999
30.11.2013 None for the applicant No.2.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
It appears that the learned counsel for the applicants is not appearing since long. Looking to the nature of the case, it would be proper to engage a counsel from the panel of Legal Service Authority to argue the matter on behalf of the applicant No.2.
Shri R.N. Yadav, Advocate is appointed accordingly to represent the applicant No.2 and to assist the Court. After preparing the case file, Shri Yadav, Advocate has shown his willingness to argue the matter.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the present case, the applicant No.1 has already expired, whereas the applicant No.2 is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 324/34 of the IPC and sentenced for six months R.I. vide judgment dated 28.9.1995 passed by the J.M.F.C. Damoh in Criminal Case No.660/94.
After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the evidence given by Santosh (PW-1), Kodulal (PW-2), Janki Bai (PW-3), Tulsarani (PW-4), Harisingh (PW-5), Gudda @ Ramdas (PW-6), timely lodged the FIR Ex.P/8 and the medical report Ex.P/7 duly proved by Dr. D.M. Santani (PW-11), it would be apparent that the victim Santosh sustained six injuries, which were found to be simple in nature and therefore, since the co-accused Raghuvir used a sharp cutting weapon, both the Courts below have rightly convicted the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 324/34 of the IPC.
So far as the sentence is concerned, the applicant No.2 Bahadur had a stick and he assaulted the victim for once or two times. He remained in the custody for more than one month and also the applicant has faced the trial, appeal and the present revision for last 18 years. Under such circumstances, it is a fit case in which looking to the overt act of the applicant No.2, his sentence may be reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody.
On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the present revision filed by the applicant No.2 Bahadur Singh is hereby partly allowed. The conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 324/34 of the IPC is hereby maintained but the sentence is reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody.
Copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below for information alongwith their records.
(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj