1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 414 of 2008 Sushma and Another Vrs State of Madhya Pradesh Present:-Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Sharma ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appellants by Shri Arvind Dwivedi, Advocate. Respondent/State by Shri R. K. Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T (Delivered on this 13th Day of December, 2011) This appeal has been preferred by appellants under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by judgment dated 05/06/2008 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind (MP) in Special Case No.166/2004, whereby they have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 304 (Part II) read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer three years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- each, with default stipulation. 2. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are not challenging the finding of learned trial court with respect to their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-II) read with Section 34 of IPC and only prayer is made with respect to awarding the sentence. It is further submitted that appellant No.1 Sushma is an widow lady and at present, appellant No.2 Ugra Singh is more than 50 years of age. They are first offenders and there is no criminal antecedents alleged against them. During trial, appellant no.1 Sushma remained in custody from 13/07/2004 to 16/10/2004 while appellant no.2 Ugra Singh remained in custody from 19/08/2004 to 13/10/2004. Hence, period of 2 sentence awarded by learned trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone by them in custody. 3. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has formally opposed the prayer of the appellants and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 4. Since learned counsel for the appellants is not challenging the finding of conviction, therefore, discussion of evidence is not necessary. Only one point is to be decided is awarding of sentence. 5. Considering the nature of offence and also considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2003 and the appeal is pending since 2008 and since then appellants are facing trial and there is no previous criminal past alleged against them, therefore, the ends of justice would meet if the conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 304 (Part II) read with Section 34 of IPC is maintained, reducing the period of sentence as already undergone by them in custody. The fine amount as awarded by learned trial Court shall remain as it is. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand discharged. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and stands disposed of to the extent as indicated herein above. ( Anil Sharma ) Judge mkb/-