CRA/1158/2017 of AJRUDDIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR on 29 December 2023

ORDER

This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.08.2017 passed by theSpecial Judge (Prevention of Atrocities) Sheopur in Special Session TrialNo.200053/2016 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 325of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine ofRs.5000/- with default stipulation.

2. In brief case of the prosecution case is that on 23.04.2016 at about03:00 PM, the complainant Munni Bai was taking bath on the platform outsideher hut, at that juncture, her goat climbed on the rope of Ajruddin's bada.

Ajruddin hit the goat by throwing a stone from his bada, which instead ofhitting the goat, hit complainant Munni Bai and caused serious injury. WhenMunni Bai went to Ajruddin's bada and asked him the reason for pelting stone,then he abused the complainant with obscene and caste-related abuses andwhen she objected, he caught hold of her and threw her on the ground.Thereafter, Sadiq came with a stick and he also used obscene and caste relatedabuses and hit her with the stick and caused injury. Ajruddin beat him with hisfists. When his sister Chhoti Bai came to save her, the accused person pushedher and caused injury. Then Bimla Bai and Ravi saved them. On the report FIRwas registered and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed inthe Court. Charges were framed against accused persons which they denied andrequested for trial. After trial, appellants have been convicted and sentenced asaforesaid.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that he does notwish to challenge the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence. Asregards sentence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant thatappellant has already suffered 05 days jail sentence and he has been facingagony of trial since 2016 for a period of near about 07 years. It is furthersubmitted that complainant suffered simple injury in the incident. Therefore, it isprayed that sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period alreadyundergone while enhancing the fine amount suitably.

4. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment but he has no objection on deciding the appeal on the point of sentence.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it is found that trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence onrecord and rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 325 of the I.P.C.hence, conviction of the appellant under Section 325 of the I.P.C. needs nointerference.

7. As regards sentence, looking to the facts and circumstances of thecase and evidence on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, ends ofjustice would meet if while reducing the jail sentence of the appellant to theperiod already undergone by him, the fine is enhanced to Rs.8000/- underSection 325 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of theappellant under Section 325 of the I.P.C. jail sentence o f the appellant isreduced to the period already undergone by him and fine amount is enhanced toRs.8000/- under Section 325 of the I.P.C. which shall be deposited by himwithin a period of two months from today, failing which the appellant will haveto suffer the sentence as awarded by the trial Court. The fine amount, if anyalready deposited by the appellant be adjusted against the aforesaid amount offine. The entire amount of fine deposited by the appellant be equally distributedin favour of the injured persons as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.

8. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.

Monika

(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)JUDGE