Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J.
Ramswaroop & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 815 of 2009
Decided On : 30-01-2023
Revision - Criminal Law - The court affirmed the conviction of the petitioners under Section 323/34 of IPC but reduced their jail sentence to the period already undergone and enhanced the fine amount to Rs.2,000 each, to be deposited as compensation to the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were convicted under Section 323/34 of IPC for committing Marpeet with the complainant Ramdayal on 25.8.2006. They filed a revision against the judgment affirming their conviction and sentencing them to 2 months RI with a fine of Rs.300.
Finding of the Court:
The court reduced the jail sentence of the petitioners to the period already undergone and enhanced the fine amount to Rs.2,000 each, to be deposited as compensation to the complainant.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioners' challenge against the sentencing, seeking a reduction in the sentence due to the time elapsed since the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the time elapsed since the incident and decided to reduce the jail sentence while enhancing the fine amount as compensation to the complainant.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the conviction of the petitioners under Section 323/34 of IPC, reduced their jail sentence to the period already undergone, and enhanced the fine amount to Rs.2,000 each, to be deposited as compensation to the complainant.
JUDGMENT
Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J. - This revision has been filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 12.10.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sheopur, in Criminal Appeal No.60/2008 affirming the judgment dated 27.8.2008 passed by JMFC, Vijaypur, in Criminal Case No.242/2006 convicting the petitioners under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentencing them to suffer 2 month RI with fine of Rs.300/-.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that on 25.8.2006 petitioners committed Marpeet with complainant Ramdayal. Crime was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. Trial was conducted. After trial, petitioners have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioners preferred appeal which was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submitted that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the petitioners for the aforesaid offence. As regards sentence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that incident took place on 25.8.2006 and more than 16 years have elapsed. They have already suffered incarceration for about 1 day. Therefore, while enhancing the fine amount suitably, sentence of the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
4. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would meet if while reducing the jail sentence of the petitioners to the period already undergone by them, the fine is enhanced to Rs.2,000/- under Section 323/34 of IPC. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of the petitioners under Section 323/34 of IPC, jail sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them and fine amount is enhanced to Rs.2,000/-each which shall be deposited by them within a period of one month from today, failing which the petitioners will have to suffer the sentence as awarded by the Courts below. The amount of fine so deposited by the petitioners be given to the complainant under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. as compensation.
7. With the aforesaaid, the revision stands disposed of.
AI
The court has the discretion to consider the time elapsed since the incident and adjust the sentence accordingly, while also providing for compensation to the victim under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
The court can reduce the sentence to the period already served, considering the time spent in custody and the mental trauma of a protracted trial.
The court has the discretion to reduce a sentence considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the lack of criminal antecedents and the absence of misuse of bail.
The court has the discretion to consider the time already undergone and the mental agony of protracted trial in reducing the sentence of the accused.
The court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to the time already served, emphasizing justice must consider the accused's circumstances and hardships.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 379 IPC but reduced the sentence to the period already served, considering the time spent in custody and the circumstances of the case.
The court may reduce a sentence based on the time already served and the circumstances surrounding the case, even when the conviction is upheld.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
