Madhya Pradesh High Court
/1197/2002 of GANDALAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAINON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1197 of 2002
BETWEEN:-
KAMLABAI W/O GENDLAL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILLAGE SONATLAI, POLICESTATION SAWANAGAR, TEHSIL ITARASI, DISTRICTHOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI ESHAAN DATT - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(BY SHRI TEEKARAM KURMI - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT
This appeal coming on hearing this day, t h e court passed thefollowing:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 29.07.2002, whereby the present appellant has been convicted foroffence under Section 324/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. forsix months with fine Rs.1000/-, with default stipulation.
2 . T he prosecution story in brief is that the incident occurred on02.12.2001 at around 4 pm in the evening. The complainant Vishnu Prasad was working in his agricultural land and cattle of other persons entered hisagricultural land. Upon this, there was some altercation and the deceased co-accused Gendalal came armed with axe and sticks and hit the complainant. The deceased co-accused hit the complainant on head with axe and the presentappellant, who is wife of deceased co-accused is said to have hit thecomplainant with stick on leg and wrist.
3 . The case was initially tried under Section 308/34 of the I.P.C., butconviction has taken place under Section 324/34 of the I.P.C.
4. Looking to the evidence of Vishnu Prasad (PW/1), Rukmani (PW/2),Premnarayan (PW/4) and other witnesses, so also the deposition of hostilewitnesses as well as the deposition of medical witness Dr. R.K. Damle (PW/3)finding of the trial Court seems to be well reasoned and impeccable and I amunable to disturb the findings in appeal.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant argued that sentenceneeds to be modified looking to the mitigating circumstances of the case. Theappellant is a lady and she was 35 years of age at the time of incident and todayshe must be almost 57 years of age. The appellant was on bail duringinvestigation and trial and she is on suspension of sentence during the pendencyof present appeal. There is nothing on record to suggest that she has misusedthe terms of bail during all these years. The appellant has already undergone jailsentence of seven days. She has been facing investigation and trial and is alsocontesting the present appeal since last about 21 years.
6. Considering the aforesaid mitigating circumstances, I deem it fit toreduce the jail sentence to one already undergone by the appellant and the fineamount is enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.3,000/-.
7. Let the fine amount be paid within three months from today failingwhich sentence originally awarded by the trial Court would come into force andthe appellant will be taken into custody to serve out the remaining jail sentence.
8. Let record of the trial court be sent along with copy of this order for information and necessary action. Bail bonds of the appellant be discharged.
rj
(VIVEK JAIN)JUDGE