Paharu vs State of M.P.

Pritinkar Diwakar, J.

Present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 20.9.1991 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (Camp Janjgir) in Sessions Trial No. 267/1987 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable u/s 326 of the Indian penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28.3.1987 FIR (Ex.P-12) was lodged by complainant/ victim Vishambhar (PW-7) alleging in it that on that day at about 9 am, there was some dispute between the son of the appellant and his sons, upon which the appellant''s sons was scolded by him and out of anger the accused/appellant assaulted the complainant with the help of axe, as a result of which he sustained two injuries on his head including two fractures.

So as to hold to accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses in support of its case, Statement of the accused/ appellant was also recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which denied the charge leveled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case.

After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant for the offence as mentioned above, Hence this appeal.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned.

Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, as per the challan, at the time of commission of offence, the appellant was aged about 62 years and now is aged about 85 years, that the incident is said to have taken place about 23 years back, that the physical condition of the appellant is very bad and he is almost bad ridden, incident had taken place all of a sudden on account of the quarrel of the complainant and that of the appellant and he has already remained in jail for about 6 months, no useful purpose would be served in sending him to jail and it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. He further submits that appellant is willing to compensate the complainant/victim by paying adequate compensation as may be directed. To this, counsel for the State has no serious objection.

In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. Appellant is now aged about 85 years, he is reported to have remained in jail for about six months, incident had taken place on a spun of moment on account of trivial issue and therefore his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, in lieu thereof, the fine of Rs. 50007- is imposed upon the accused/appellant and out of this amount Rs. 4,0007- shall be given to the complainant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failure, if any, in depositing the amount within the period stipulated, would make the appellant liable to be inside the jail for a period of three months rigorous imprisonment.

Appeal thus partly succeeds.