Madhya Pradesh High Court
Agnoo vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 November, 2012
1
Criminal Appeal No. 3397 of 1999
06/11/2012
Shri P.R.Bhave, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-
State.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is finally disposed of.
The appellant preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 04/11/1999 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi, in Sessions Trial No.16/1996, whereby appellant had been convicted under Section 325 of the IPC and sentenced for a period of one year RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in lieu of default RI for 6 months.
2. The prosecution case is that in the morning of 07/10/1995 at village Dhumma, Lakhpati alias Nakchhedi trespassed in the land of Ghurau and started agricultural operation. When Ghurau (PW-1), Munni (PW-2) and Budhani (PW-3) objected and asked Nakchhedi to stop from ploughing their land. The appellant Agnoo, co-accused Lakhpati alias Nakchhedi, Nandlal, Ramkripal, Ramsiya, Rajmani and Ramratan gave the beating with lathi and ballam. As a result of which Ghurau, Munni and Budhani sustained injuries. On the complaint, a case was registered under Sections 307, 325, 323 and 148 of the IPC, against the applicant and other co- accused.
3. On being charged with the offences under the aforesaid 2 sections, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and the appellant/accused examined 7 witnesses in their defence. After appreciating the evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted all the accused form the charges under Section 148 of the IPC. Accused No.2 Lakhpati alias Nakchhedi and accused No.6 Rajmani were convicted for the offence under Sections 323, 323/34 of the IPC and sentenced for the period already under gone (9 days) with fine of Rs.500/- against each of them. The appellant Agnoo was convicted for the offence under section 325 of the I.P.C and sentenced for one year RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in lieu of default RI for 6 months.
5. Accused/appellant Agnoo filed the appeal and assailed the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
6. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant did not challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court but confined his arguments to the point of sentence. He submitted that incident is of the year 1995 and no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant again to jail. He further submitted that the appellant was aged about 50 years at the time of incident and had remained in jail custody for a period of nine days. He had no criminal record. He prayed that jail sentence would badly affect him and his family members, therefore, the appellant should be sentenced to the period of sentence already undergone by him and may be 3 fined if necessary.
7. On the other hand, the learned Panel Lawyer supported the conviction but he did not oppose the prayer of the appellants' counsel on the point of sentence.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and the impugned judgment.
9. On going through the record of the case, it is found that the First Information Report Ex.P/7 has been lodged by Rammilan with Ghurau (PW-1). FIR was registered by D.P.Pandey (PW-5), ASI, Police Station Bahari District Sindhi. The witnesses Ghurau (PW-1), Munni (PW-2), Budhani (PW-3), Mangaldeen (PW-4) and Ramkrishan (PW-8) in their depositions supported the story of the prosecution. The testimonies of the above mentioned witnesses have been further corroborated by the deposition of Dr. Uday Singh (PW-6), who on medical examination of Ghurau (PW-1), found the injuries on his person. He had proved medical report and X-ray (Ex.P/12 to Ex.P/17).
10. Considering the said evidence on record, the finding of the Trial Court holding the appellant guilty for the alleged offence does not require any interference. Hence, the judgment of the Trial Court is hereby affirmed.
11. With regard to sentence, admittedly, appellant/accused was aged about 50 years at the time of incident. The incident occurred on 07/10/1995 and thus more than 17 years have passed since the incident. Now the appellant is leading 4 peaceful life with his family as normal member of the society. It appears that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him back to the jail.
12. Consequently, this criminal appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of appellant/accused by the Court below is hereby maintained, but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the fine amount is enhanced to Rs.7000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand) including the fine amount already deposited by him. The remaining amount be deposited in the trial Court within 3 months failing which he shall undergo S.I. for 2 months.
13. Out of the total amount of fine, Rs.4,000/- will be given to the injured Ghurau (PW-1)and Rs.1000/- will be given to Budhani (PW-3), by calling them in the trial Court through summon.
14. In the result, this appeal is allowed on the terms indicated hereinabove.
15. The office is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with record to the trial Court for information and compliance.
(SMT.VIMLA JAIN) JUDGE manju 5