SHAITAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 of Cr.P.C against judgment dated 13.11.2007 passed in S.S.T. No.137/2004 by learned Special Judge S.C.S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Guna, M.P. convicting the appellant Shaitan Singh for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and convicting the appellant no.2 Krishna Pal Singh for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and fine of Rs.500/- each which has been imposed upon them. They have further been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC for causing simple hurt to Jhankibai and fine of Rs.1000/- which has been imposed on them with default stipulation.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 20.09.2004 at about 9 A.M. complainant Jhankibai and her mother-in-law Gayabai had gone to cut their crop on the land given on patta to Jhankibai two years back. Appellant Shaitan Singh has filed an appeal against the allotment of order of patta by which patta allotted to Jhankibai was cancelled but Jhankibai obtained stay order from the Court of Commissioner, Gwalior. It is alleged that Shaitan Singh armed with farsa and Krishna Pal Singh armed with luhangi attacked on the complainant and her mother-in-law by abusing them on the basis of their caste. It is further alleged that Shaitan Singh inflicted farsa blow on the head of Gayabai and Jhankibai has been sustained simple injury caused by luhangi.

(3.) SO far as sentence is concerned, appellants are first offenders and they were exercising their right on the property on the basis of stay granted to them by Revenue Court which has been mentioned by the complainant also in F.I.R. Exhibit P-6 and complainant was also exercising their right on the basis of stay by Higher Revenue Court. The incident took place on 20.09.2004. Appellant Shaitan Singh was in custody during trial for 8 days and appellant Krishna Pal Singh was in custody for 32 days during trial. Therefore, considering the nature of offence and long period of litigation, the appellants are not required to force to undergo remaining part of their sentence after lapse of eight years since eight days have already undergone by the appellants is sufficient to meet the ends of justice for the offence punishable under Section 324 and 324/34 of IPC.