SITARAM & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.6.2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sagar in Criminal Appeal No.104/2000 affirming the judgment dated 8.4.2000 passed by JMFC Sagar, in Criminal Case No.1621/1999 so far as it relates to the present applicants, whereby applicant No.1 Sitaram has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 326 and 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- with default clause, whereas applicant No.2 Gyan Singh has been convicted under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three months' RI with fine of Rs. 250/- with default clause.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 31.1.1990 at around 10:30 PM when complainant Bihari Singh (PW-1) and his brothers Rajesh (PW-5), Mahesh (PW-7), Gajraj Singh (PW-8) and nephew Makhan (PW-10) were going to their home after closing their garage, at that time near Ram Mandir, the applicants and other coaccused persons came and caused injuries with the aid of sticks as also acid, which was thrown by applicant No.1 Sitaram. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the competent Court, and after the evidence was led before the trial Court by the parties, the present applicants and co-accused were convicted by the learned Judge of the trial Court as aforesaid. The criminal appeal preferred by the applicants was also dismissed by the learned Judge of the appellate Court vide judgment dated 30.6.2000 upholding their conviction and sentence, whereas the criminal appeal preferred by co-accused Mojilal and Mohan Singh was partly allowed by maintaining their conviction Section 323/34 of IPC and sentencing them to the period already undergone by them.

(3.) Shri R.S.Shukla, Advocate who is appointed as Amicus Curiae has submitted that on the same set of evidence when other two accused persons have been sentenced under Section 323/34 of IPC, there was no occasion for the learned Judge of the trial Court to convict the present applicant No.1 Sitaram under Section 326 of IPC. In the alternative it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the date of incident is 31.1.1990, and as such 28 years have been passed since the date of incident and the applicants have already suffered ordeal of trial, appeal and revision during the last 28 years, and therefore they may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicant No.1 Sitaram has already undergone the jail sentence of 57 days whereas applicant No.2 Gyan Singh has undergone the jail sentence of 13 days.