STATE OF M P Vs. SALEEM ALIAS CHAMARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This is another sad example where a learned single Judge, Madhya Pradesh High Court, totally oblivious of the consequences has passed an order directing reduction of the custodial sentence to the period already undergone. We have come across a large number of such cases which have been disposed of in very casual and mechanical manner with no trace of application of mind regarding the question of sentence.

(3.) The respondents (hereinafter referred to as the accused) faced trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 294, 307, 333 and 506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). Allegation was that on 2-4-2002 around 9 p.m. at a public place near the bookstall on platform Nos. 2 and 3 of Harda Railway Station, they misbehaved and abused constable complainant Umesh Singh in vulgar words. They committed criminal intimidation by threatening to kill him. Accused Deepak alias Deepu was charged for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307 and 333, IPC for assaulting the complainant on the right side of his neck with sharp-edged weapon with the intention to kill him and also for deterring a public servant from performing his public duty by voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a sharp-edged weapon. Accused Salim alias Chamaru was charged under Sections 333 and 307 with the aid of Section 34, IPC. Learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad found accused-Salim alias Chamaru guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC and Section 333 read with Section 34, IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and four years respectively. Fine of Rs. 1,000/- was also imposed for the first named offence with default stipulation and Rs. 250/- for the second named offence with default stipulation. Accused Deepak was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 307 and 330, IPC and was directed to undergo custodial sentence of five and four years respectively with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively with default stipulation. The accused persons preferred Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 2003. At the time of hearing of the appeal learned counsel appearing for the accused person submitted that the fine amounts had been deposited and since they had suffered custodial sentence of nearly six months 23 days, leniency should be shown. It is to be noted that the conviction was not challenged. The High Court found that the accused persons are illiterate persons belonging to lower income group and on consideration of the fact that at the time of commission of offence they were of 23 years of age, the sentence of imprisonment deserved to be reduced to the period already undergone. Appeal was accordingly disposed of.