Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikky @ Neeraj Bhasin vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 April, 2012
Cr.A. No. 463/2007
Cr.A. No. 463/2007
8.5.2012
Shri R.K. Nanhoriya, Adv. for the appellants. Shri Rakesh Kumar Ksharwani, Panel Lawyer for state. Heard finally.
This is an appeal against the judgment dated 3.2.2007, passed by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge,(Fast Track Court) Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No.200/1998 convicting the accused-appellants under Section 326 of the I.P.C., and sentencing to each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one years and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default R.I for three months each.
(2) Learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset, submitted that he does not wish to press the appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sentence part only. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have already undergone sentence for some time. He prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellants be modified to the extent already undergone by them and the fact that the appellants have been facing criminal proceedings since 1997 and suffered financial loss and mental agony.
(3) On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer Opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellants. But he concedes that the Apex Court has taken lenient view in old cases and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- instead of; Rs.1,000/- till rising of the Court, or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
(4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(5) The date of incident is 19.11.1997. The appellants have already undergone jail sentence for some period they were in jail during trial Cr.A. No. 463/2007 which is evident from the judgment of the trial court. Hence, the appellants have already suffered jail sentence for some time, they are facing criminal proceedings since 1997and suffered financial loss and mental agony .
(6) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that since the matter was compromised between the parties and appellant no.4 Iqbal was under custody from 17.12.97 to 16.3.98 and appellant No.1 Vikky alias Neeraj Bhasin was under custody from 17.12.97 to 31.1.1998 during the course of trial and both the parties have compromised the matter but the offence was not compoundable hence their application was rejected. (7) Learned counsel for the appellants places reliance in the case of Naib Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1986S.C. 2192) in which it has been held as under:
"7. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment of the High Court convicting the appellant under S.326 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. As to the sentence, we are inclined to take a lenient view. We are informed that the appellant is a Teacher in a Government School. The circumstances brought out by the prosecution evidence show that he acted in the heat of the moment. Looking to the fact that the incident occurred on April 22, 1973, some 13 years back , we do not think it desirable to send the appellant back to jail. We accordingly reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded by the High Court to imprisonment till rising of the Court and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The amount of fine shall be deposited in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Cr.A. No. 463/2007 Muktsar within a period of one month from today. The amount, if recovered, shall be paid to the complainant Darshan Singh by way of compensation.
(8) Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed.
The order of conviction passed against the appellants is maintained. However, the sentence of one year R.I. awarded to the appellants is modified to the extent of sentence already undergone by them, is hereby set aside. The fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed by the trial Court is hereby enhanced to Rs.6,000/-(Six thousand only). It is submitted that fine amount of Rs.one thousand imposed by trial Court has been deposited. Each of the appellants shall deposit Rs.5,000/-( five thousand only) from three months from today.
(9) Since the appellants are in bail, their bail bonds and surety stand shall be discharged.
(9) The appeal is partly allowed as aforesaid.
Certified copy as per rules.
(M.A.Siddiqui) JUDGE Ag/