1 Cri. A. No.2205/2006 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR S.B. : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. SINHO Criminal Appeal No. 2205/2006 Janardhan s/o. Ramcharan Kunbi -Vs.- The State of Madhya Pradesh Counsel for the Appellant : Shri B.M. Prasad, Advocate Counsel for the resp./State : Shri R.K. Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer. J U D G E M E N T (13.12.2011) Appellant has filed this appeal u/s. 374 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 8.11.2006 passed by Special Judge, Balaghat in Special Case No.28/2006 whereby convicted appellant u/s. 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months. 2. As per prosecution case on 11.4.2006 at 9 pm in village Mohjhari there was dispute with complainant Dharmdas, son Virendra and Devendra who belongs to scheduled caste. The appellant abused with obscene language and intentionally insults them being member of scheduled caste and assaulted Devendra with knife. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Sessions Judge in para-2 of the impugned judgment held that counter case was filed against complainant and it cannot be said that who was aggressor. The incident took place due to quarrel between daughter of complainant Devendra and 2 Cri. A. No.2205/2006 daughter of appellant and thereafter the cases were registered against both the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has remained in custody from 20.4.2006 to 22.4.2006 i.e. 3 days. Appellant is not challenging the finding of fact. 5. Appellant alongwith other co-accused Kesarbai assaulted Dharmdas with kicks and fists, resultantly, his one teeth was broken. Injured Devendra (PW-2) specifically stated that appellant assaulted him with a knife below his left eye. Aforesaid fact is fully supported by Basant (PW-3). Just after the incident named FIR was lodged. Dr. Pradeep Gedam (PW-6) has found an incised injury below his left eye in his MLC report Ex. P/7. 6. As before this court the finding of conviction of the appellant u/s. 324 of IPC is not challenged, hence, the aforesaid findings are hereby affirmed. 7. With regard to sentence is concerned, admittedly, the appellant has remained in custody from 20.4.2006 to 22.4.2006 i.e. 3 days. No previous criminal conduct of the appellant has been proved by the prosecution. No fruitful purpose will be served by sending him for short term of sentence in jail. In these circumstances, the jail sentence awarded by the court below can be reduced to the period already undergone by him in jail by imposing the fine amount. 8. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant u/s. 324 of IPC is hereby affirmed but the sentence of R.I. for 6 months as awarded by the court below is hereby modified and instead thereof, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in jail (from 20.4.2006 to 22.4.2006), however, the fine of 3 Cri. A. No.2205/2006 Rs.2,000/- is imposed on the appellant. The fine amount be deposited within a period of 3 months, in default of payment of fine R.I. for 2 months. 9. Out of the recovered fine amount Rs. 1,500/- or 75% of the recovered fine amount be paid to injured Dharmdas towards compensation u/s. 357 of Cr.P.C. 10. With the aforesaid directions and modifications in the sentence, appeal stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court for information and compliance. (S.C. Sinho) Judge RC