1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1384/1996 Ramnath Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri P.C. Jain, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T (30/11/2010) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 8.8.1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Satna in S.T. No.5/96 by which the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- in default further R.I. for six months. 2. The prosecution story in short is that on 12.1.1993 the Constable Jaikaran (PW-3) and Home Guard Rajmani (PW-4), who were posted at Police Station, Kolgawan went to their night duty in Mohalla Kwadi Tola in the township of Kolgawan. At about 1:30 a.m. in the night, they found that the appellant and other accused persons were chasing a woman. They went behind the appellant. The appellant and other accused persons saw the complainants 2 that they were following them, then the appellant and accused persons started assaulting the complainants. They took them in the house of Ramnath and removed their uniform. The Constable Jaikaran became unconscious, whereas Home Guard Rajmani informed another Constable Arun Singh about the incident. The Constable Arun took Jaikaran and Rajmani to Police Station, Kolgawan. Jaikaran lodged an FIR before the police station, Kolgawan. Both the victims were sent to District Hospital, Satna for their medical examination and treatment. It was found that the Constable Jaikaran sustained fracture in left hand, left thumb and left index finger. Similarly, Rajmani sustained fracture on right ulna bone. After due investigation, the police had filed a challan before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satna for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 332 and 353 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. The appellant abjured his guilt. He took the defence that he was not present in the town Kolgawan at the time of incident. When he came back in the morning then his wife informed him that two police officials went inside the house after consuming the liquor and were misbehaving with the female members of the family and, therefore, so many persons of the locality gathered and they assaulted the police officials. There was no role of the appellant in the 3 aforesaid crime. In the defence Rakesh Kumar (DW-1) and Ghatolia (DW-2) were examined. 4. The Sessions Judge, Satna after considering the evidence adduced by the parties acquitted all the accused persons for all the charges framed against them, except the appellant. The appellant was also acquitted for all the other charges but convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and inflicted with the aforesaid sentence. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not present at the spot at the time of incident and both the police officials did misbehave with the female members of his family in the house. However, at present a period of more than 15 years is passed and the appellant has already undergone in custody for more than three months, therefore, at present the appellant does not want to challenge the conviction of the case, but he prays that he may not be sent to jail again. 7. Since the appellant is not challenging the conviction imposed against him, therefore, there is no need to discuss the case on merits. However, the appellant is a reputed citizen, who has no criminal past. He has faced the trial and appeal for more than 15 years. He has already undergone in the custody for more than three months, then 4 looking to all these circumstances, it would not be proper to send him in jail any more. However, fine amount may be increased. 8. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal of the appellant is hereby partly allowed. The conviction directed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC against the appellant is hereby maintained, but the sentence is reduced and modified to a period which he has already undergone in the custody with a fine of Rs.5,000/- (the trial Court has directed the fine of Rs.1,000/-), in addition to the fine imposed by the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has to undergo to R.I. for a period of six months. The appellant is directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today. In case, if the appellant is not deposited the fine amount within the stipulated period then the trial Court will be free to execute the default sentence. 9. At present, the appellant is on bail, therefore it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged. (N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE 30.11.2010 pnkj