CRA/1962/2003 of DULICHAND Vs THE STATE OF M.P. on 29 December 2023

JUDGMENT

By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction dated23.09.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Begumganj in S.T.No.100/2002 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 326 ofIPC and sentenced to undergo 21 days simple imprisonment and fine ofRs.2000/- in default R.I. for 3 months.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that theprosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial,the appellant remained in custody for 21 days during trial. He prayed for acquittal of the appellant.

3 . Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Statesupported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved theincident and the learned Special Judge has rightly convicted the appellant underSection 326 of IPC.

4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal ofrecord, it appears that a report was lodged on 20.05.2002 at P.S. BegumnagarDistrict-Raisen (M.P.) against the appellant by Omkar Singh which wasregistered as Crime No. 144/2002 under Sections 307 and 506 of Indian PenalCode. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The prosecution hasexamined 5 witnesses and 2 witnesses were examined in defence. LearnedSession Judge by judgment dated 23.09.2003 acquitted the appellant from thecharges under Sections 307 and 506 of IPC and convicted under Section 326of IPC and sentenced as stated hereinabove. The findings recorded by learnedSession Judge is based on due appreciation of evidence and I do not find anyreason to interfere in the findings of learned Session Judge and the convictionunder Section 326 of IPC is upheld.

5. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year2002, the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of theappellant on record, the jail sentence is already undergone. The parties filed thecompromise application before the trial Court, I deem it proper to set aside thedefault sentence imposed by trial Court on account of failure to pay the fine.The appellant will deposit the fine amount of Rs.2000/- within two months fromtoday if the same has already been not deposited.

6. The appellant is on bail, his personal bonds and bail bonds be discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.

7 . Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.

Shub

(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE