BHERULAL AND ORS Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A criminal case was registered against five persons on the basis of the FIR lodged by Ratanlal (PW/1) in the police station Ghatia, district Ujjain. It was alleged that the assailants armed with weapon attacked and assaulted Ratanlal, his brother Motisingh and the servant Tolaram when they were going to their agricultural field on 23.09.2002. Two of the accused were below 18 years of age on the date of commission of offence, therefore, their case was segregated and it was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for disposal. The remaining accused were charge sheeted for offences punishable under sections 148, 307, 307/149 and 324/149 of the IPC. Accused persons denied the charges and claimed that they were falsely implicated because of enmity. On consideration of the prosecution evidence Court found that accused were guilty of offence punishable under section 326 IPC and sentenced them to undergo 3 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each with default stipulation. They were also found guilty of offence punishable under section 325/149 IPC and were sentenced to 3 years RI with fine of Rs.2,000/- each with default stipulation. They were also found guilty of offence punishable under section 323/149 and were sentenced to six months RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation. It was directed that the sentences would run concurrently. The present appeal is against the aforesaid judgment dated 31.7.2003 passed by III A.S.J, Ujjain in S.T.No.18/2003. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No.3 Bapusingh expired, therefore, his name has been struck off. The appeal survives only with regard to Bherulal and Ishwar singh.

(2.) The only contention urged in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of sentence awarded to appellants. It is submitted that appellants are living peaceful life and no untoward incident has been reported against them during the pendency of the appeal. He, therefore, prays that the jail sentence be reduced to the sentence already undergone.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent/State does not oppose this limited prayer made by the counsel for the appellants. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that no purpose would be served by sending the appellants to jail at this distant point of time, the appeal is allowed in part. So far as the conviction of the appellants is concerned, it is based on appreciation of evidence, therefore, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants, their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone keeping the sentence of fine and default stipulation unaltered. On payment of fine, if not already deposited, appellant No.2 Ishwarsingh who is in jail shall be released, if not required in any other cause and the bail bonds of appellant No.1 Bherulal shall stand discharged.