Pramod Jain and another vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

J.K. Maheshwari

Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14th May, 1998 passed by the 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No. 159/1997, convicting appellant Pramod u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25(1-B)(b) and 27 of the Arms Act and appellant Yujin u/s 326/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 25(1-B)(b) of the Indian Penal Code and directing appellant Pramod to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- and three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 250/- respectively and appellant Yujin to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-respectively; with default stipulation, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants. As per the prosecution story, on 18.10.1996 wife of complainant Jyoti was bringing drinking water; sister of the accused Promod was also there to bring water, however, dispute arose for writing some letters. Sister of Promod came to her home. Thereafter, Pramod and his brother Yujin appeared there with sword and assaulted on the leg of the injured Gopal. After medical examination, offence u/s 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25(1-B)(b) and 27 of the Arms Act was registered. On filing the challan, the case was committed for trial to the competent Sessions Court. The competent Court has framed charge u/s 307 and 307/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25(1-B)(b) and 27 of the Arms Act. The accused persons have denied the incident and abjured the guilt. It is further pleaded that they have been falsely implicated by the prosecution. Learned trial Court, after considering the statement of the complainant namely Gopal, statement of Dr. P. Goyal (PW-7), found that the injuries have been caused by the appellant by using dangerous weapon, but looking to the nature of the injuries and it was on the legs, accused persons were acquitted of the offence u/s 307 of the Indian Penal code, but convicted the appellants as stated herein above.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that looking to the fact that the complainant and the accused persons are neighbours. At present they are residing peacefully. The incident took place about sixteen years back and at present the appellants have undergone the jail sentence of more than 40 days. It is further submitted that the injuries received to the injured is on the lower part of the body and not on the vital part, which are also simple in nature, therefore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the conviction of the appellants u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code may be converted into u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code by enhancing the amount of fine and the sentence so awarded by the trial Court may be reduced.

Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the respondent/State opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, but he is unable to dispute the fact that the injuries received by the injured are on the legs and they are simple in nature, though caused by the appellant with dangerous weapons.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the fact that the appellants and the complainant both are the neighbours. The incident had taken place in a heat of passion and the injuries received by the injured are simple in nature, the conviction of the appellants u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside and it is converted into an offence punishable u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B)(b) and 27 of the Arms Act is concerned, the findings so recorded by the trial Court do not want any interference.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, where the incident is of the year 1996 and sixteen years have already passed; during such time, the appellants and complainant are living peacefully with their family and no criminal antecedent has been recorded, therefore, looking to the nature of the injuries caused, in the considered opinion of this Court, the jail sentence already undergone by the appellants, which is more than 40 days, would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice, subject to enhancement of the fine and compensation of Rs. 1,000/- (rupees one thousand) plus Rs. 4,000/- (rupees four thousand) against each of the appellants.

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is hereby allowed in part. The conviction of the appellants u/s 326/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside. The appellants are convicted u/s 324/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25(1-B)(b) and 27(2) of the Arms Act. In all the offences, the sentence already undergone i.e. 40 days would be sufficient, subject to enhancement of fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- (rupees one thousand) plus amount of compensation of Rs. 4,000/- (rupees four thousand), making a total amount of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) against each appellants. It is directed that the amount of fine and compensation shall be deposited by the appellants within a period of two months from today, otherwise, the appellants shall serve the jail sentence of three years, in view of the modified charges and punishment. This criminal appeal stands disposed of accordingly with the aforesaid modification.