More specifically, respondent number.
1 and 3 is that they had used an axe to attack the victim.
The prosecutions case is that the companyplainant lodged a report on 15.04.2008 that at around 9 p.m., while he was sitting inside his house with three other people, the respondentsaccused barged in, carrying weapons.
1 and 3 were carrying axes, while respondent number.
The main allegation as against the respondent number.
The respondentsaccused herein were males of age 33 years, 33 years, 28 years and 70 years respectively at the time of the incident.
The respondentsaccused were directed to deposit the enhanced fine within a period of 30 days, failing which they were to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days.
The learned companynsel for the appellantState submitted that the High Court erred in number companysidering the gravity of the offence and the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the respondentsaccused had undergone imprisonment of only 4 days.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
On the other hand, the learned companynsel for the respondents accused submitted that the High Court has companyrectly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in passing the impugned order, and therefore, the same does number merit any interference from this Court.
The respondentsaccused entered the house of the companyplainant, attacked the others present with axes and with sticks.
Vide impugned order, the High Court partly allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them, which was a period of 4 days, while enhancing the fine amount imposed upon them by Rs.
The respondentsaccused asked the companyplainant why he had number kept his company tied, and subsequently, on respondent number 4s exhortation, the respondentsaccused attacked the companyplainant and the others present at that time resulting in various injuries to them.
The injuries caused were incised wounds on the hands and backs of the victims, an incised wound next to the ear of one of the victims and bruising, etc.
1500/ Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred Only each.
They were also companyvicted under Section 452 of IPC, which carries a maximum sentence of seven years along with fine.
Further the motivation seems to be that the company belonging to the victims had entered the household of the accused and the respondent number 1 with his companyccused are proved to be the aggressor herein.
The respondent group was numerically matched with that of the victims and there were two respondentsaccused within the group carrying lathis.
Being aggrieved, the respondentsaccused filed an appeal before the High Court, challenging only the quantum of sentence imposed on them by the Trial Court.
Aggrieved by the impugned order, the State has filed the present appeal challenging the order of the High Court reducing the sentence awarded to the respondentsaccused.
The respondentsaccused were companyvicted for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, or of imprisonment of a term which may extend to ten years, and fine.
In this scuffle there is numberdispute that some of the respondentsaccused herein were also injured profusely.
From the perusal of the record, the injuries on some of the victims are number specifically attributed.
Four people, including the companyplainant, were injured.
2 and 4 were carrying sticks.
659 of 2011, whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondentsaccused herein and reduced the sentence awarded by the Trial Court to the period already undergone for the offences under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter referred to Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by GEETA AHUJA Date 2019.10.22 162348 IST Reason as IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, and Section 452 of the IPC.
V. RAMANA, J. The present appeal is directed by the appellantState against the final order dated 06.11.2012, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Gwalior Bench in Criminal Appeal No.
