CRA/654/2003 of RAFIAUE KHAN & ORS. Vs THE STATE OF M.P. on 29 December 2023

ORDER

This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellants/accused against theimpugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2003passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Session Trial

No.326/2000, whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant No.3and 2 respectively for commission of offences under Sections 147/148,307/149, 452, 294, 506B, 323 & 324/149 of IPC and sentenced them toundergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, one year and six months andfine of Rs.500/- and Rs.200/- and rigorous imprisonment for six months, oneyear, six months, six months and one year and fine of Rs.500/-, Rs.200/-,Rs.100/- and Rs.500/-.

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the incident occurred on01.05.2001 at around 06.00 p.m. in the evening. The accused persons are saidto be in an unlawful assembly and the PW-4 Samad Khan was at his tailoringshop and accused Rahu started abusing the son of complainant who is PW-12and then the accused Rahu went away. Sometime after, the accused personscame armed with sword and other sharp edged weapons and assaulted thecomplainant when his son came to rescue him, he was also assaulted. His otherson Bablu was also assaulted when he tried to intervene. When his son Papputook shelter in the house of Gaya Prasad PW-7, then the accused personsassaulted Gaya Prasad also.

3. The case was initially tried under Sections 148, 149, 324, 294, 452 and307 of IPC. However, after trial, the accused persons have been convictedunder Sections 147, 324, 323, 148, 452 and 294 of IPC.

4. As per the evidence and the material adduced on behalf of theprosecution, the Trial Court found the offence to be proved for offences asmentioned in para-1 above.

5. This Court has gone through the entire evidence adduced on behalf ofthe prosecution. The prosecution has examined PW-4 Samad Khan, PW-12Pappu, PW-5 Bablu, PW-7 Gaya Prasad and PW-1 Dr. V.C. Jain and other witnesses. This Court has carefully gone through the evidence of the materialwitnesses and eye-witnesses.

6. After having perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it isfound that the findings recorded by the Trial Court upholding the guilt of theaccused-appellants are impeccable and the prosecution has succeeded inproving the case against the accused-appellants. There is nothing in crossexamination of the witnesses that may demolish the prosecution case. Thus,there is nothing in the said findings of the trial court that can be said to beerroneous or perverse, warranting interference by this Court in Appellatejurisdiction.

7. Thus, the conviction of the appellants as ordered by the trial court ishereby upheld.

8. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances that deserve to be

taken in consideration so far as the sentence part is concerned. Theappellants/accused are first offenders and the incident took place in the year2001 and accused/appellants have faced trial and this appeal is pending since2003, the accused/appellants has been under trial or appearing before the Courtas condition to suspension of sentence since long. Nothing has come on recordregarding misuse of conditions of bail/suspension of sentence during the longperiod since the prosecution, trial and appeal are pending. Thus, this Courtdeems it fit to reduce the sentence of the appellants No.1, 2 and 3 to the periodalready undergone by them (Nine months four days, Five months twenty onedays and Twenty six days respectively) and to enhance the total fine amount toRs.5,000/- each under all the offenses.

9. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned conviction is maintained. However, the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergoimprisonment for the period the appellants No.1, 2 and 3 had already undergone(Nine months four days, Five months twenty one days and Twenty six daysrespectively), subject to depositing the further fine amount of Rs.5,000/- eachwithin a period of three months from today.

10. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Courtis not deposited within a period of three months from today, then the originalsentence would come into operation and appellants shall be taken into custodyor they would surrender themselves to serve the entire jail sentence of one yearas awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.

11. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.

12. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, if any, are discharged.

13. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court record alongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for informationand necessary compliance.

14. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.

veni

(VIVEK JAIN)

JUDGE