The Court reduced the sentence based on the appellants' lack of prior offenses and the nature of the incident.

1. Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Siddharth Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State.

2. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 28/06/2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Badnawar, District Dhar in Sessions Trial No.05/2017 thereby they have been convicted under S.304 Part - II read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and have been sentenced to under go 07 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation.

3. As per prosecution story, at the instance of Deetu, Rakesh gave some money to Madan to visit religious places and after returning from that religious place Madan was not returning the money to Rakesh. On 07/11/2016 at about 08:00 PM, deceased Goverdhan came to the house of the present appellants, who are father and son and they have started abusing him by filthy language. When Goverdhan objected it, they assaulted him by fist and leg. Kalu and Sumitra have intervene in the matter. Goverdhan approached the police station and lodged an FIR against these appellants. FIR was registered at Crime No.590/2016 under S.294, S.323, S.506 and S.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Ex. - P / 6) against these appellants.

4. Goverdhan was admitted in hospital. He was medically examined and he reported pain on back and shoulder. He was examined by Chief Block Medical Officer, C.H.C., Badnawar (Dhar) vide Ex. - P / 9. Thereafter, he was admitted in the Hospital on 08/11/2016 and he died on 09/11/2016. The Post - mortem was conducted 09/11/2016 and Post - mortem report was give in 10/11/2016.

5. The cause of death mentioned in the Post - mortem report is reproduced below: -
[Editors Note: Vernacular Matter Omitted]

6. Accordingly, the police has added S.302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in the FIR.

7. After completing the investigation, the police has filed charge sheet before the competent Court. The appellants pleaded not guilty accordingly, the prosecution was called upon to establish the charges against them. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and got exhibited twenty two documents i.e. Ex. - P / 1to P / 22. In the defense the appellants did not examined any witness and pleaded that deceased was a habitual drinker and died because of weakness. They have been falsely implicated.

8. After appreciating the evidence came on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 28/06/2019 has convicted both the appellants under S.304 Part - II read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and have been sentenced accordingly. They have been discharged under S.294 and S.506 Part - II of the .

9. At the outset, Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants have under gone 04 years and 08 months of sentence out of total 07 years. They are in custody since 10/11/2016. They are not the habitual offenders. The dispute arose because of a petty issue. There was no intention to cause harm to the deceased Goverdhan. The appellant No.1 is the elder brother of Goverdhan and there was no enmity between them. The appellant No.2 was aged about 20 years at the time of commission of offence. They have under gone sufficient period of incarceration. Hence, they are not assailing the findings on merits and pray for reduction of period from 07 years to the period already undergone.

10. Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer by submitting that since the appellants and deceased are close relatives, therefore, they were aware about his physical health condition and they should not assault him by fist and leg. As per Doc