CRA/1056/2016 of MAHENDRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR on 29 December 2023

ORDER

This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of Cr.P.C.being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.09.2016 passed by the firstAdditional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar in Sessions Trial No.131/2012whereby the appellant- Mahendra has been convicted under Section 324 of theI.P.C and sentenced to undergo One year rigorous imprisonment with a fine ofRs.2000/- 2 . In brief, the prosecution story is such that complainant Halkaiyalodged report that on 07.07.2012 some altercation took place betweencomplainant and accused persons on the issue of pouring soil, due to which, accused persons Mahendra and Pratap abused and assaulted him by means ofAxe and lathi as a result of which he sustained injuries in his hand and leg. Onthe report of the complainant, at Police Station Nai Sarai, Distt. AshoknagarCrime No. 116 of 2012 under Sections 323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC wasregistered against the appellant. After completion of investigation, charge-sheetwas filed in the Court. Charges were framed against accused persons whichthey denied and requested for trial. After trial, appellant-Mahendra has beenconvicted and sentenced as aforesaid

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 that theperiod already undergone would be sufficient in the ends of justice as theappellant has already suffered 08 days jail sentence and he has been facingagony of trial since 2016 for a period of near about 07 years. It is furthersubmitted that appellant has no previous criminal antecedents. It is prayed thatsentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone whileenhancing fine amount suitably.

4. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment but hehas 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 therecord, it is found that trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on recordand rightly convicted the appellant under Section 324 of the I.P.C. hence,conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of the L.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 and fine amount is enhanced to Rs. 4000/-under Section 324 of the L.P.C. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction ofthe appellant under Section 324 of the LP.C. jail sentence of the appellant isreduced to the period already undergone by him and fine amount is enhancedto Rs. 4000/-. The fine amount already deposited by the appellant be adjustedagainst the aforesaid amount of fine. The fine amount 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 entire amount of thefine deposited by the appellant be paid to the complainant/injured ascompensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.

With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.

ar

(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)JUDGE