Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jugge @ Ramratan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2013
CRR No.49/2013
Criminal Revision No.49/2013
25.3.2013 Shri A.D.Mishra, counsel for the applicant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/
respondent.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally.
The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 326 and 324 of IPC vide judgment dated 3.3.2010 passed by the learned JMFC, Panna (Smt. Siddhi Mishra) in criminal case No.627/2008 and sentenced for 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and 1 year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In criminal appeal No.23/2010, the learned First Additional Judge to First Additional Sessions Judge, Panna vide judgment dated 12.12.2012, dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the applicant has preferred the present revision.
The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 7.12.2005, at about 6.30 p.m., the applicant was tying his buffaloes to a pole. The victim Manoj directed him to remove his buffaloes from that place and thereafter, exchange of hot words took place between them and thereafter, the applicant and his wife Prabha, went to the spot with a stick and CRR No.49/2013 shouted that they would tie the buffaloes at the same place. Thereafter, the applicant went inside the house and brought a sword. On his shouting, the complainant Manoj and his father Motilal also came to the spot. The applicant assaulted the victim Motilal by sword on his left chest. The victim Manoj tried to held the sword and therefore, he sustained injuries in his fingers. Thereafter, the applicant assaulted the victim Motilal for the second time by a sword, causing him injury on his head and also, he caused injury to the victim Manoj on his knee. An FIR, Ex.P/1 was lodged by the victim Manoj on the same day and the victims were sent for their medico legal examination and treatment. It was found that the victim Motilal sustained a fracture on his head. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court.
The applicant abjured his guilt. He took a plea that a counter case was registered against the complainant party of the present case and it was a case of free fight. However, no defence evidence was adduced.
The learned JMFC, Panna, after considering the prosecution's evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above, whereas, the appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed in toto.
CRR No.49/2013I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
It is proved beyond doubt by the testimony of the complainant Manoj (P.W.1), his father Mukundi (P.W.2) and other eye witness Raju (P.W.5) alongwith timely lodged FIR, Ex.P/1 and medical report proved by Dr.D.K.Jain (P.W.3) that the applicant assaulted the victims. The applicant has stated that he had lodged a counter FIR but, that counter FIR was not produced in the present case before the trial Court and therefore, the applicant failed to prove that he assaulted the victims due to any right of private defence or due to any sudden or grave provocation. Under such circumstances, the applicant voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the victim Motilal and voluntarily caused hurt to the victim Manoj by a sword, which is a sharp cutting instrument and therefore, the applicant was rightly convicted for the offence punishable under sections 326 and 324 of IPC.
So far as the sentence is concerned, it is apparent that the applicant was the first offender. The incident was not pre-planned. It was started in a spur of moment because the victims were objecting that the applicant was tying his buffaloes to a pole, which was a public place. Under such CRR No.49/2013 circumstances, looking to the reason for the quarrel and the fact that the applicant was the first offender, whereas he remained in the custody for more than 3 months, it would be proper that his jail sentence may be reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody by enhancement of some fine amount. It is not necessary that he should be sentenced with a longer period of jail sentence.
On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision filed by the applicant is hereby partly allowed. The conviction directed against the applicant for the offence punishable under sections 326 and 324 of IPC is hereby maintained but, the sentence is reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody during the trial, appeal and revision. However, the fine is enhanced from a sum of Rs.1,000/- to a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under section 326 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo for 6 months' rigorous imprisonment. Similarly, fine is enhanced from a sum of Rs.1,000/-to a sum of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo for 3 months rigorous imprisonment in addition. If fine is deposited then, sum of CRR No.49/2013 Rs.7,000/- and Rs.2,000/- be provided to the victims Motilal and Manoj respectively, by way of a compensation.
At present the applicant is in custody and therefore, office is directed for issuance of a supersession warrant, so that the applicant may be released forthwith, if he deposits the remaining fine amount before the trial Court or before the jail authorities.
A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court as well as to the appellate Court along with their records for information and compliance.
(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra