Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1133/1999 of SADDU @ SUDESH 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, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1133 of 1999
BETWEEN:-
SADDU @ SUDESH S/O SHRI GANGARAM SONKAR,AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O 1350, EAST KARIYAPATHAR, PREMSAGAR, THANA HANUMANTAL,JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(NONE FOR THE APPELLANT)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THOUGH : STATIONHOUSE OFFICER, HANUMANTAL, JABALPUR (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI SOURABH SONI - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT
This appeal coming on hearing this day, t h e court passed the following:
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 convictiondated 15.04.1999, whereby the present appellant has been convicted for offenceunder Section 326 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years,with default stipulation.
2 . The prosecution case in brief is that the incident occurred on18.03.1997 when the complainant was returning home at around 11.15 pm in thenight. Co-accused - Munna is said to have called out to him. When thecomplainant went there, then he saw the other accused persons were also present there and as soon as the complainant reached the place, the accusedSaddu assaulted him on head with a sharp edged object, accused Hemraj triedto stab him in chest, which was dodged by the complainant, but the knife hithim in left wrist. Accused Munna also stabbed him on left wrist. When hescreamed for help then persons from neighborhood reached and rescued him.
3. The accused persons were initially tried under Section 307 of theI.P.C., but accused Saddu has been convicted under Section 326 and co-accused Hemraj and Munna have been convicted under Section 324 of theI.P.C.
4 . Upon perusal of deposition of Kaushal (PW/1), Dr. Maya Verma(PW/10), Dr. Y.R. Yadav (PW/8), Shyamlal Sahu (PW/2) and other witnessesfinding of the trial Court seems to be well reasoned and impeccable and I amunable to disturb the findings in appeal. Thus, the conviction of the appellants isconfirmed.
5. The sentence needs to be modified looking to the mitigating circumstances of the case. The appellant was 22 years of age at the time ofincident and today he must be almost 48 years of age. The appellant was on bailduring investigation and trial and he is on suspension of sentence during thependency of present appeal. There is nothing on record to suggest that he hasmisused the terms of bail during all these years.The appellant has alreadyundergone jail sentence of one month and 17 days. He has been facinginvestigation and trial and is also contesting the present appeal since last about24 years.
6. Considering the aforesaid mitigating circumstances, I deem it fit toreduce the jail sentence to one already undergone by the appellant, i.e. onemonth and 17 days and the fine amount Rs.5,000/- is imposed.
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 forinformation and necessary action. Bail bonds of the appellant be discharged.
rj
(VIVEK JAIN)JUDGE