BIRJOO Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, filed under section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 is directed against the judgment dated 29.10.2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 232/2003 by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar. The appellant was directed to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, whereas he was required to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 100/- for offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. In addition, he was directed to undergo six months R.I. for committing offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.

(2.) Shri S.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submits that the charge was framed against the present appellant by the Court below on 23.10.2003. The appellant unconditionally admitted the charge, therefore, the Court below by judgment and order dated 29.10.2003 convicted the present appellant.

(3.) Criticizing the judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the language employed in Section 229 Cr.P.C., 1973 it is discretion of the Court to punish the accused on the basis of his confession. The discretion vested with the Court does not mean that in all circumstances, the Court is bound to exercise the discretion against the accused. Reliance is placed on a judgment of Guwahati High Court reported in 2006 Cr.L.J. 1188 (State of Mizoram v. Ramengmawia ). To elaborate, it is urged that in the facts and circumstances of this case, Court below should have exercised its discretion in favour of the present appellant and the Court has erred in mechanically exercising its discretion against the present appellant.