LexSAKHARAM versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH &ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 269 SAK HARAM v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH &ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 1079 of 2015) AUGUST 19, 2015 . [T. S. THAKUR, V. GOPALA GOWDA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - s.325 and s.320, Clause (7) - Offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt - Wordy c altercation - Both complainant party and accused party gathered and there was a fight-Appellant inflicted two lathi blows on the head of PW-2- Trial Court convicted appellant u/s.302 /PC as also u/s.307 /PC - High Court set aside appellant's conviction uls.302 /PC and modified his D conviction u/s.307 /PC as conviction uls.325 /PC - Held: Insofar as the injuries sustained by PW-2, injury No. 1 was found to be a lacerated wound size 2 x Y. cm deep upto the skin on the right side of the head; whereas injury No.2 was a lacerated wound size 2 x Y, cm deep upto the skin on the left E side of the head- Doctor (PW-15) opined that both the injuries were inflicted by a blunt and hard object - X-ray report revealed that there was a fracture of the frontal bone of the head of PW2 and there was a callus - By perusal of X-ray report, it is evident that PW-2 sustained fracture or dislocation F of the bone which clearly falls in the category of grievous ·hurt as expressly mentioned in clause (7) of s.320 /PC - Having regard to the nature of injuries and the X-ray report, ·the High Court rightly convicted the appellant u/s.325 IPC. Sentence I Sentencing - Wordy altercation - Both G complainant party and accused party gathered and there was a fight - Appellant inflicted two lathi blows on the head of PW-2- Trial Court convicted appellant under s.302 /PC as also under s.307 /PC - High Court set aside appellant's 269 H 270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015) 14 S.C.R. A conviction u/s.302 IPC and modified his conviction u/s.307 /PC as conviction uls.325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for seven years - Quantum of sentence challenged before Supreme Court - Held: Imposition of sentence is always a matter of discretion of the Court - The measure of B punishment in a given case must depend upon nature of the offence, the conduct of the accused and unprotected state of victim - Supreme Court will not interfere with the sentence unless it finds. tf?at the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or on unsound principles or that C the lower court or the High Court has not taken ihto account any relevant factor in imposing the sentence- In the present case, as the occurrence was a sudden fight and in a fit of passion the appellant inflicted injuries on PW-2 ..:. The sentence of imprisonment of seven years imposed on the D appellant is excessive and the same is to be reduced- While confirming the conviction u/s.325 /PC, the sentence of imprisonment of seven years imposed on him is reduced to three years-Penal Code, 1860- s.325. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal E Appeal No. 1079 of 2015. From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2013 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabapur in Criminal Appeal No. 935 of 2004. F Himanshu Dubey and M.C. Dhingra, Advs. for the Appellant. Naveen and Mishra Saurabh,Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 01.08.2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.935 of 2004 whereby the High H. Court partly allowed the appeal thereby modifying the SAKHARAM v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 271 [R. BANUMATHI, J.] conviction of the appellant-Sakharam under Section 307 IPC A to Section 325 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default clause. 3. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that complainant-Ramnath (PW-1) lives in village-Devrimaal arid B runs a flourmill and also an agriculturist. On 09.06.2002 at about 6.00 p.111., when Ramnath-PW-1 was working at his flourmill, Raju came to PW-1 's flourmill and asked him whether Ramnath called Jogi Lodhi for a meal in Jhalarfunction to which the complainant replied in the negative and on this issue there C was a wordy altercation between them. At about 7.30 p.m., when Ramnath was returning back from his flourmill in front of one Prahlad Vishwakarma's house, Raju wrongfully restrained him and started quarrelling with him. At that time Vipatlal- grandfather of Raju came thereon with
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.