Balram vs Maharaj Singh

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on the question of admission.

After perusal of the impugned judgment on record, it seems that respondent No. 1-Maharaj Singh stood for trial before the learned Magistrate for the commission of offence u/s 294, 336, 323 and 506 Part-II of I.P.C. After recording hearing the arguments of both the parties and taking into account the evidence led by the prosecution of the witnesses, i.e., complainant Balram (PW-1), Dr. N.S. Chauhan (PW-4), eye-witnesses Dayaram (PW-2), Deshram (PW-6), Bhan Singh (PW-3) and Babulal (PW-5), the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the respondent No. 2/accused and therefore acquitted the accused of the charge for offence under Sections 294, 336 and 506 Part-II of I.P.C. But at the same, since the offence alleged against the accused u/s 323 of I.P.C. is found proved, he was convicted and sentenced till rising of the court alongwith fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One thousand only).

Being aggrieved by the lesser punishment so awarded, the present revision has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court showed too much leniency towards the accused while awarding punishment to him and therefore it is prayed that appropriate punishment as per law be imposed against the accused/respondent No. 2.

Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the impugned judgment has been perused.

The punishment prescribed in Section 323 of I.P.C. is explicit which defines to a term which may extend to one year or with fine to one thousand rupees or with both. So the punishment awarded u/s 323 of I.P.C. is for one year or fine of Rs. 1,000/- or both. The learned Magistrate vide impugned judgment imposed fine of Rs. 1,000/- with sentence to the accused/respondent No. 2 till rising of the court. Hence, in the opinion of this court, the learned Magistrate has not committed any mistake of law in awarding punishment to the accused and more so when nine years have elapsed after the date of incident, it would be wholly unjustified to disturb the impugned punishment. It is well merited.

Consequently, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed for want of substance.