STATE OF M P Vs. NANDRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by State under Section 377 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the inadequacy of sentence passed by J.M.F.C., Balaghat in Criminal Case No. 500/1995, sentencing the respondent vide judgment dated 01.02.96 with fine of Rs.500.00 under Section 326 of IPC, in addition to sentence till rising of the Court.

(2.) VIDE impugned judgment, trial Court in addition to respondent also convicted 8 accused persons under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced them with fine of Rs. 300.00. Though State preferred appeal against them also, but leave was granted in respect of respondent only.

(3.) THIS appeal has been preferred under Section 377 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the adequacy of the sentence on the grounds that in view of the gravity of the injuries sustained by PW'2 sentence of Rs.500.00 fine is inadequate. For causing grievous injury by sharp edged weapon on head sufficient jail sentence should have been awarded. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that there is no evidence that respondent is the author of incised wound sustained by PW'2. PW'2 himself stated that respondent assaulted on his head with lathi. PW'1 stated that respondent assaulted axe on his head whereas there is no conviction and sentence in respect of sharp edged weapon injury caused to Soma (PW'1). It is further submitted that independent witness Bhaiyalal (PW'6) did not see the respondent on the spot. Similarly, Parwatibai (PW'8) also stated that respondent was on the spot or not is doubtful. Learned counsel for the respondent further pointed out the discrepancies in medical evidence also because MLC report Ex.P2 indicates injury on parietal region whereas evidence of X'ray fracture was found on parietal temporal region. It being a case of free fight amongst the nine persons, it is difficult to hold that respondent is the author of main injury sustained by PW'2. 3