Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prakash Palandi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 December, 2014
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH
PRESENT : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. K. GUPTA
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1761/2014
Prakash Palandi
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
.................................................................................................
Shri Vasant Daniel, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Brahmadatt Singh, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Shri Maqbool Khan, counsel for the complainant.
....................................................................................................
ORDER
(Delivered on the 11th day of December, 2014) The applicant has been convicted of offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh in Criminal Case No.43/1994 vide judgment dated 21.10.1997 and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-. In Criminal Appeal No.75 of 1997 the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh vide judgment dated 8.8.2014 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments the applicant has preferred the present revision.
2. The prosecution's case in short is that, on 11.7.1983 the victim Rajesh Kumar Dubey (PW1) was coming from a tea shop to his house situated at Damoh along with his friends 2 Criminal Revision No.1761/2014 Rameshwar and Shahid Khan. At about 11.30 p.m he heard a sound of running of someone. When he turned to see the reason for that sound, one accused Sunil threw a glass of acid on his face and thereafter, the applicant Prakash threw acid from a bucket on him. He sustained burn injuries on his face, eyes, both the hands and left thigh. Victim Rajesh Kumar Dubey had lodged an FIR Ex.P/1 and he was sent for his medico legal examination to the Government Hospital, Damoh. He was kept for 2-3 days there and thereafter, he was referred to the Medical College, Jabalpur. After due investigation a charge sheet was filed before the trial Court.
3. The applicant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea. However, in defence Prabhudayal (DW1), Dr. Sudhir Mukhariya (DW2) and Shrikant Verma (DW3) were examined as witnesses.
4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above whereas, the appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
6. Though some eye witnesses have turned hostile. However, the testimony of victim Rajesh Kumar Dubey is duly corroborated by his timely lodged FIR Ex.P/1 and medical report proved by Dr. O.P. Dubey (PW2). It would be apparent that the victim sustained burn injuries due to acid and the 3 Criminal Revision No.1761/2014 injuries were grievous in nature. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that it was the co-accused Sunil who threw acid by a glass whereas, acid as alleged to be thrown by the applicant by a bucket did not touch the victim. After a lengthy cross examination of the victim, it appears that the testimony of victim Rajesh Kumar Dubey is reliable to the extent that the applicant has also thrown acid on him. Both the Courts below have rightly convicted the applicant under Section 326 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. There is no reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of the Courts below relating to conviction under Section 326 read with section 34 of I.P.C.
7. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was 45 years of age in the year 1990 and therefore, at present he is above 70 years of age. He has faced the trial, appeal and the present revision for the last 30 years. Also a compromise took place between the victim and the applicant. Victim is duly compensated. The applicant remained in custody for more than four months and therefore, looking to all the aforesaid circumstances, his sentence may be reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody.
8. After considering the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, it appears that it is a case where a compromise took place between the parties and the effect of compromise may be observed on the sentence which is to be 4 Criminal Revision No.1761/2014 inflicted upon the applicant. Looking to his age and custody period as well as the period of trial, appeal and revision, it would be proper that the sentence be reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody.
9. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the revision filed by the applicant is hereby partly allowed. The conviction of offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of I.P.C is hereby maintained but, the sentence is reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody.
10. The applicant is in jail and therefore, office is directed to arrange for issuance of the super session warrant so that the applicant may be released without any delay.
11. Copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below along with their records for information and compliance.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge 11.12.2014 bina