Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of M.P. vs Jeetu @ Jitendra on 3 March, 2014
=
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 536 OF 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 498 of 2013)
STATE OF M.P. ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
JEETU @ JITENDRA & ANR. ... RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
The State of Madhya Pradesh, aggrieved by the inadequacy of sentence, has preferred this special leave petition along with an application for condonation of delay.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
Respondent No. 2-Ravi @ Ravi Kumar was held guilty under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) whereas respondent No. 1- Jeetu @ Jitendra was held guilty under Section 307 of the IPC and both of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default clause, by the trial court. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, they preferred Criminal Appeal No. 470 of 2004. The High Court by the impugned order had maintained their conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by them and further enhanced the amount of fine by Rs. 5,000/- each in addition to the amount of fine imposed by the trial court. It is against the inadequacy of sentence that the appellant-State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred the instant appeal.
Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the respondents have undergone only seven to eight months of incarceration and, therefore, the High Court ought not to have reduced the sentence. She points out that the allegation made against the respondents is of causing injuries by firearm. She points out that a large number of injuries caused by firearm have been found on the person of the injured.
On the other hand, Mr. Sudhakar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submits that the prosecution having not established their case beyond all reasonable doubts, they deserve to be acquitted from the charge. He submits that no firearm injuries have been found on the person of the injured and, therefore, the conviction and sentence of respondents is bad in law.
We have appreciated the rival submissions and we do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Pandey. The injured, according to the prosecution, was at his shop when the respondents went there and demanded five pouches of Rajdarbar. When the informant asked for the price of the same, the respondents have stated that they are ’Dada’ of the area and how did he dare to demand money from them. At this, respondent No. 2- Ravi @ Ravi Kumar exhorted respondent No. 1- Jeetu @ Jitendra to fire upon the informant and, accordingly, Jeetu fired at him. The eyewitnesses account support the case of the prosecution. Not only that, the Doctor who has examined the injured has found several injuries on the person of the injured. The injuries found were multiple abrasions of pinhead size all over the body and in the opinion of the Doctor it was caused by blast of gunpowder. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the respondents have rightly been convicted.
Now, coming to the question of sentence, it is an admitted position that respondents had undergone incarceration of seven to eight months only. Allegation against respondent No. 1- Jeetu @ Jitendra was causing the firearm injuries whereas the allegation against respondent No. 2-Ravi @ Ravi Kumar is of exhorting him. Gun shot injuries have been found on the person of the injured. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that it was not a fit case in which the High Court should have reduced the sentence to the period of seven/eight months. Respondent No. 1- Jeetu @ Jitendra has caused the firearm injuries. We are of the opinion that sentence of seven/eight months imprisonment on the respondents is grossly inadequate. Accordingly, we restore the sentence awarded to him by the trial court. So far as respondent No. 2-Ravi @ Ravi Kumar is concerned, he has been convicted with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC and there is no allegation that he had caused the firearm injuries. Hence, we reduce his sentence to rigorous imprisonment for two years but maintain the fine inflicted upon him by the High Court. This, in our opinion, would meet the ends of justice.
In the result, we allow this appeal and enhance the sentence, as aforesaid. Respondents are directed to surrender forthwith, failing which, the trial court shall ensure that they are taken into custody to serve out the remainder of their sentence.
..........................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD) ..........................J. (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE) New Delhi;
March 3, 2014
ITEM NO.54 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).498/2013 (From the judgement and order dated 02/02/2012 in CRL. APPEAL No.470/2004 of The HIGH COURT OF M.P AT GWALIOR) STATE OF M.P. Petitioner(s) VERSUS JEETU @ JITENDRA & ANR. Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP, exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date: 03/03/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE For Petitioner(s) Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv.
for Mr. C.D. Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sudhakar Pandey, Adv.
for Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv.
Ms. Susmita Lal, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
| (S.K. Rakheja) | |(Indu Satija) |
|Court Master | |Assistant Registrar |
(Signed order is placed on the file)