Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hakim Singh vs State Of M.P. on 20 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9937
1 CRA-129-2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 20th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 129 of 2005
HAKIM SINGH
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Rajkumar Singh Kushwah - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Samar Ghuraiya Dy Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER
This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 03.02.2005 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Sessions Trial No.23/2000 (State of M.P. vs. Hakim Singh and Others), whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 308 Part 2 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Aggrieved by the said conviction, this appeal is presented before this Court.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 17.09.1999, a dispute arose between the parties regarding filling water from a handpump situated near the house of the appellant. The dispute escalated into a quarrel, and it is alleged that the appellant and other co-accused persons assaulted the complainant party. It is further alleged that later in the night, when the complainants were going to Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 25-03-2026 18:38:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9937 2 CRA-129-2005 lodge a report, they were stopped by the accused persons and the appellant fired from a firearm, causing injuries to two persons.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this Court, vide order dated 28.10.2025, had issued a bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- to secure the presence of the appellant, pursuant to which the appellant appeared before this Court. It is further submitted that the appellant remained in custody from 26.10.1999 to 07.11.1999, i.e., for a period of 12 days. Learned counsel submits that, at present, the appellant is in poor mental and physical condition. It is stated that the appellant is mentally unfit and not in a position to properly understand or participate in the proceedings. He is unable to follow instructions or communicate effectively. It is also submitted that the appellant is physically weak and unable to move without assistance.
Due to his age and health condition, he is mostly confined to bed and requires constant care. In such circumstances, sending the appellant to jail would serve no useful purpose and would only cause further hardship. Learned counsel further submits that the object of punishment would not be achieved by sending the appellant to jail, especially when he has already undergone a period of custody. Therefore, it is prayed that, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the mental and physical condition of the appellant, this Court may be pleased to sentence the appellant to the period already undergone.
4. Counsel for the State does not dispute the aforesaid facts.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon due consideration of the submissions made, this Court has taken note of the fact Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 25-03-2026 18:38:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9937 3 CRA-129-2005 that the appellant has already remained in custody from 26.10.1999 to 07.11.1999 for a period of 12 days.
6. This Court has also considered the present mental and physical condition of the appellant, as brought on record, which indicates that the appellant is mentally unfit, unable to properly understand or participate in the proceedings, and is also physically incapacitated, requiring assistance for movement and constant care.
7. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, particularly the deteriorated health condition of the appellant and the short period of custody already undergone by him, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant to jail at this stage. Accordingly, this Court finds it appropriate to sentence the appellant to the period already undergone by him.
8. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. The jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The bail bonds of the appellant shall be discharged.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE (aspr) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 25-03-2026 18:38:50