JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “Cr.P.C.”) against the impugned judgment dated 11.2.1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in ST No.115/98, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, with default stipulation of 2 months R.I.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.8.1998 at about 7 p.m. appellant/accused came to the house of Vinod and asked to accompany him up to his field. At that time appellant Ramsingh had a sickle in his hand. Complainant Vinod after informing his mother and grand-mother accompanied Ramsingh and both of them proceeded towards the field of the appellant. When they reached at the public funeral place, appellant caught hold Vinod and started beating him, due to which Vinod fell down. Then appellant gave number of blows by sharp cutting weapon sickle (Darata), due to which Vinod sustained various injuries over his mouth, chest etc. Vinod slowly came towards the village and fell down on the ‘Otla’ of Mangilal and informed about the incident to his mother and grand-mother. Thereafter complainant Vinod lodged an FIR (Ex.P/6) at P.S. Narayangarh. Accordingly offence has been registered. Complainant was sent for medico legal examination, which was conducted by Dr. S.N. Dube (PW-9). Investigating officer seized two broken teeth, one bed-sheet, some torn parts of the shirt, one slipper from the spot. Blood stained clothes and sickle were also seized from the possession of the appellant. All the seized articles were sent for chemical examination and the FSL report Ex.P/11 has been received.

3. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed and trial court framed the charges under section 307 of IPC against the appellant. Appellant abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. Prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses, while defence has examined one witness before the trial Court. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove.

4. The appellant has preferred this appeal on several grounds but during the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant did not press the appeal on merit. He did not assail the finding part of the judgment and he has confined his argument to the quantum of sentence part only and his prayer is that the sentence of the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone. He submits that the appellant has already suffered 21 months and 25 days imprisonment and he is facing trial since 1998 and he is now 55 years old person. After the incident he has not committed any other offence, therefore, his jail sentence be reduced to the period already undergone and fine imposed by the trial Court may be enhanced.

5. Per contra, learned GA for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the appeal by submitting that trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and the sentence in question is sufficient.

6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and considered their arguments and perused the record and evidence produced by both the sides.

7. In view of the submission, although conviction has not been challenged, but perusal of the evidence justifies the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court.

8. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant appears to be just and bonafide. The appellant has already suffered 21 months and 25 days jail incarceration. He is now 55 years old person. He is facing trial since 1998. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Guddi Patel v. State of M.P. reported in 2022(1) Cr.L.R. (M.P.) 223 has also held that the appellant has suffered jail incarceration for a period of one year and he has no criminal background, therefore, se