NANKA BHILALA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been submitted by the accused/appellant challenging the judgment dated 17th July, 2004 in Sessions Trial No. 21/04 recorded by the Sessions Judge, Guna (M.P.) convicting thereby the accused/appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. read with Section 25(1-b)(B) of the Arms Act and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and one year's R.I., respectively. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) In short, the prosecution case is that on 25th October, 2003 at 6-30 p.m., when Kanya (PW-4), the son of the complainant was coming back to his residence after making purchase from the shop, on the way, accused met him. The accused abused him and when the victim asked him for not using such language, he was dealt with a blow by means of Dhariya causing injuries on his head and face. After receiving injuries, the injured fell down and became unconscious. The complainant tried to intervene in the matter, but the accused after injuring his son fled away from the spot. On hearing the shouts, the villagers collected on the spot. Accordingly, the incident was reported to the police station, Sirsi vide report (Ex.P/ 3), on the basis of which Crime No. 47/03 was registered against the accused for commission of offence under Sections 30-7 and 294 of I.P.C. The injured was sent to the hospital for medical examination by the I.O. Mahesh Sharma (PW-10). The spot vide Ex.P/6 was prepared.

(3.) During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that he does not wish to challenge the conviction of the appellant for the alleged offences but he confined his argument only on the quantum of sentence. It is submitted that the accused has undergone the term of detention of more than ten years. Placing reliance on the decisions in the cases of Mansoor Vs. State of M.P.,1979 MPWN 101 and Narayan Singh Nathu Singh Vs. Natarwar Lal Hari Lal Thakkar & Another, 1982 CrLR 35, learned counsel requests that the sentences awarded to the appellant under the impugned judgment by the trial court may be modified and reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him.