Mangal Singh Kurmi vs State Of M.P

This appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction dated 13/02/1998 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in ST.No. 259/97, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324, 452 of the IPC and directed to suffer R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.500/-, RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulation however, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently .

Brief facts of the case are that on 26/04/1997, complainant Perma Bai has lodged the report that an altercation took place in the flour mill between her and co-accused Saroj Bai thereafter, Saroj Bai alongwith present appellant have entered into her house forcibly and assaulted the injuries by means of knife. On that report, police has registered the report for the offence punishable under Section 307, 450 of IPC against the present appellant and after the investigation filed the charge-sheet against appellant before JMFC who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. On that charge-sheet ST.No.259/97 was registered. Learned ASJ framed charge against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 450 of the IPC and tried the case.

The appellant abjured his guilt and took the defence that he has been falsely implicated in the crime. However after trial, learned ASJ found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 and 452 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment appellant preferred this appeal.

Although, apart from the quantum of sentence appellant in this appeal has also challenged the legality of the conviction, but during course of the arguments learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not want to press the appeal on the finding of conviction. Otherwise also from the evidence produced by the prosecution, finding of conviction of the trial Court appears to be correct. So finding of conviction of trial Court is affirmed.

On the point of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant/accused is first offender. He has already suffered the jail sentence of 245 days and has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 2/04/1998. Further, the appellant has no criminal past. So, he be released on sentence already undergone.

Certainly, the pre and past incidents, conduct of the appellant, cannot be lost sight of and can be taken as mitigating circumstances. So looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to the fact that the appellant has already suffered the jail sentence of 245 days as per the record of trial court, the substantive jail sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 324 and 452 of the IPC against appellant is reduced to the period already undergone but sentence of fine awarded by the trial Court under Section 324 of IPC is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer RI for 3 months. However, the sentence of fine u/s 452 of the IPC shall remain intact. The enhanced fine amount deposited by the appellant be given to complainant Perma Bai by way of compensation as defined under section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The impugned judgment of the trial Court is modified accordingly.

Hence, this appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerning trial Court for information and necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.