Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Choudhary @ Kati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 19 November, 2013
Criminal Appeal No. 206/2006 19.11.2013
Shri Pramod Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Umesh Pandey, Public Prosecutor for the State. Heard finally.
This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2)of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.1.2006 recorded by Tenth Additional Sessions Judge in S.T. No. 539/2005 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 325, 341 of the IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and Fine of Rs. 200/- respectively with default stipulations.
The facts, in short, giving rise to this appeal are that on 31.8.2005 at about 7:00 PM, while complainant Santoshi Bai (PW-3) was returning from Satpula Bajaria, the appellant and co- accused Ashok Choudhary restrained her near Kati, abused her and assaulted her with a stick (danda), as a result of which she sustained as many as 10 injuries. A report (Ex.P-5) was lodged at P.S. Civil Line, Jabalpur. The complainant was sent for medical examination where Dr. S.K. Pandey (PW-2) treated her. She remained hospitalized in the Victoria Hospital for about 7 days. The appellant and co-accused were arrested. After due investigation, they were charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 341 of the IPC before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur, who in turn, committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court made over the case to the trial Court.
Learned Tenth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur framed the charges under Sections 307, 341 of the IPC.
The appellant and co-accused abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.
On appraisal of evidence on record, the learned Tenth Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the co-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 341 of the IPC. The appellant was also acquitted to the charge under Section 307 of the IPC, however, he has been convicted under Sections 325, 341 of the IPC, hence this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he does not want to press the conviction recorded by the Sessions Court, however, the appellant has suffered the jail sentence of about 18 months. The appellant is a poor person. He is the sole bread earner of the family, if he remained in jail for long time, his family will suffer great hardship, therefore, the ends of justice would be met, if the appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone and fine.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has supported the conviction and sentence recorded by the Court below.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the judgment passed by the Court below and other material on record. Since the learned counsel for the appellant has not pressed for the conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial Court under Sections 325, 341 of the IPC and even otherwise also, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant on the basis of statement of complainant Santoshi Bai (PW-1), which is duly corroborated by the medical evidence and the FIR lodged by the complainant, in these circumstances, the conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial Court under Sections 325, 341 of the IPC is hereby affirmed.
So far as sentence is concerned, the appellant has suffered the jail sentence of about 18 months, he is a poor person and sole bread earner of the family, in these circumstances in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if the appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone i.e. R.I. for about 18 months and fine (as awarded by the Sessions Court).
Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial Court under Section 325, 341 of the IPC is hereby affirmed. The sentence of the appellant recorded by the trial Court is reduced. The appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone i.e. about 18 months and fine of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 200/- respectively (which have already been deposited).
The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other offence.
Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately along with the copy of this judgment for information and necessary action.
(G.S.Solanki) Judge PB