Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1497/2003 of BALIRAM Vs THE STATE OF M.P. on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRAON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1497 of 2003
BETWEEN:-
BALIRAM S/O SUMMILAL KATIYA, AGED ABOUT 19YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PANJRA, P.S.BANKHEDI, DISTT. HOSHANGABAD (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI ASHOK CHOUDHARY - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. BANKHEDI, DISTT.HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI SAURABH SHUKLA - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th 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.
ORDER
This appeal has been filed being aggrieved of the judgment and findingrecorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur in S.T. No. 164/99 dated28[th] August, 2003 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 307of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and fine amount of Rs.
1,000/-, in default of deposit of fine amount, 15 days additional R.I.
The basic case against the appellant was that on 24/07/1998 at 6 P.M.,the appellant with other persons were beating Arvind. When the complainantgot the information, he went on the place of incident and saw that his son
Arvind was tied with the Jamun tree and Baliram and wife Kumaliya werebeating Arvind and he tried to intervene. Baliram assaulted him with Axe whichcaused injury on his forehead and co-accused Summilal assaulted him by lathiand Baarelal also injured him.
The case was reported to the Police Station, Bankhedi where crime no.104/98 was registered under Sections 342, 307 and 323/34 and afterinvestigation, the chargesheet was filed. After commitment, matter wassubmitted for trial to the Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur.
The trial court has acquitted the appellant from rest of the charges on19/08/2003 due to compounding of the matter between the parties. This section307 of I.P.C. being non-compoundable, the trial continued and by theimpugned judgment, the trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant asabove.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the matter has beencompromised between the parties. There is no criminal record against theappellant and no fruitful purpose would be served by resending the appellant tojudicial custody as he has already suffered 38 days jail sentence so the jailsentence be reduced to the period already undergone.
Learned Panel Lawyer has argued that the offence is under Section 307of I.P.C. which is punishable upto life imprisonment and the injuries as per thestatement of medical expert are sufficient to endanger the life of a person,hence, no leniency be adopted towards the appellant.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case record.
As per the record of the trial court, there was cross case session no.468/02 which is pending before the trial Court and in that case, the appellant andco-accused persons Kumaliya Bai, Baliram and Summilal also got injuries and this fact is recorded in para no. 15 of the impugned judgment.
It is also clear that the parties have compromised the matter and on19/08/2003, the matter was compounded. Thus, it is also clear that relations ofthe parties have become normal in the light of above facts. It is also noteworthythat the appeal is pending since 2003. The incident pertains to year 1999. Morethan 24 years have passed. No fruitful purpose would be served to resend theappellant in the jail custody.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court hadimposed only six months R.I., therefore, the jail sentence is reduced to theperiod already undergone. The fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- toRs.10,000/-. The appellant shall deposit the fine amount adjusting the previousfine amount deposited, if any, before the trial court within a period of threemonths from the date of receipt of copy of the order, in default, he shallundergo S.I. for four months.
The bail bonds of the appellant subject to realization of the fine amountare discharged. The order of the trial court regarding the case property isupheld.
Thus, with the above observation, the appeal is partly allowed.
Record of the trial court be returned back along with the copy of thejudgment.
In above terms, the appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.
vy
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE