MADANSINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal of the year 1998 has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11/11/1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonkatch Distt. Dewas in Sessions Trial No. 16/1998 whereby the appellant Madansingh was convicted for offence punishable u/S.326 of the IPC and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.250/ -, in case of default of payment of fine he was to undergo additional three months simple imprisonment and appellant Phoolsingh and appellant Ratansingh were convicted for offence punishable u/S 326/34 IPC and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.250/ -each in case of default of payment of fine they have to under go additional three months simple imprisonment. Brief facts necessary for elucidation are that on 31.10.07 at about 12:30 O'clock complainant Rugnathsingh S/o Amarsingh lodged an FIR (Ex.P/1) to the effect that the accused appellants assaulted Siddharthsingh & Rugnathsingh by using lathi and knife, with the result, they have sustained grievous injuries. It was further alleged that appellant Madansingh plunged the knife into the stomach of the complainant Rugnathsingh with the result his intestine has came out. After arrest, framing of charges and recording of evidence, appellants were convicted as stated above, against which the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants has urged that the appellants were acquitted from offence u/S. 307 of the IPC. However Counsel has candidly admitted that according to Dr. Kailash Jonwal P.W.10 injury in the stomach of complainant was grievous in nature and omentum has come out. The conviction is contrary to the principles of law. The Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence and there are material omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. However, the prosecution has been unable to prove the offence under Sections 326 and 326/34 are not at all fulfilled. Counsel also stated that the appellants have almost undergone for a period of 19 days in custody.

(3.) ON considering the above submissions, I find that the impugned judgment is based on valid and cogent reasons and proper marshalling of evidence and no infirmity can be found with the impugned judgment of the trial Court. I have no hesitation in upholding the conviction of the accused for offence under Sections 326 and 326/34 of the IPC. However, the fact that they have undergone some of the custodial sentence, the prayer of the Counsel for the appellants is allowed, in the interest of justice and the custodial sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine amount is raised to Rs.5000/ -each which shall be deposited by the accused appellants in Trial Court and paid to the injured equally as compensation for offence under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. Needless to say any amount already paid as fine shall be adjusted. On failure to pay the fine within the stipulated period and the appellants shall undergo the remaining sentence as directed by the lower Court.