260 of 1998 whereby, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, even while upholding the companyviction of accused respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code IPC , has modified the sentence of 3 years rigours imprisonment as awarded by Signature Not Verified the Trial Court to that of the period already undergone i.e., 3 months and Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date 2019.02.21 112144 IST Reason 21 days.
The relevant part of the order passed by the High Court, carrying the reasons for reduction of sentence, reads as under The incident had taken place on 13.5.1996.
The background aspects of the case, so far relevant for the question at hand companyld be numbericed as follows The prosecution case had been that on 13.05.1996, at about 430 p.m., the respondent assaulted his father Tulsiram with a blunt object causing fracture on the parietal region of skull and the same night, victim succumbed to the injury at Betual Hospital.
In appeal by the accused, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in its impugned judgment and order dated 27.11.2012, found numberreason to companysider interference in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards companyviction for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC but, on the question of punishment, proceeded to reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from the period of 3 years to that of the period already undergone i.e., 3 months and 21 days.
Per companytra, the learned companynsel appearing for the respondent accused has supported the impugned order with the submissions that the same meets the ends of justice, particularly when the respondent was only 26 years of age at the time of the incident in question that occurred at the spur of moment and without any intention on the part of the respondent to cause the death of his father.
PW 4 Dinesh alias Mathu companyroborated the testimonies of PW 2 and PW 3.
Having thus companyvicted the accused respondent for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC, the Trial Court found it just and proper to award him the punishment of 3 years rigorous imprisonment while also observing that the period of detention already undergone from 20.05.1996 to 09.09.1996 would be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him.
The only question calling for determination in this appeal is As to whether, in the given set of facts and circumstances, the High Court was justified in interfering with the punishment awarded by the Trial Court by reducing the same to the period of imprisonment already undergone?
However, for the reason that the accused stood companyvicted for the main offence, the Trial Court chose number to companyvict him for the offence under Section 201 IPC with reference to the decision of this Court in Kalawati State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1953 SC 131.
120/1996 Ex.
After due investigation, the respondent was charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 201 and 302 IPC.
In trial, the prosecution, inter alia, relied on the testimony of PW 3 Smt.
PW 2 Babulal stated that upon hearing the cries of PW 3, he saw the accused assaulting someone he reached the spot and found that the injured person was the father of accused and he prevented the accused from further assaulting his father.
The appellant at the time of the incident was a young man aged 26 years.
Sawalbai who stated that while working in a field near the place of incident, she had seen the respondent assaulting his father with a lathi wooden log .
In this appeal, the appellant State of Madhya Pradesh has called in question the judgment and order dated 27.11.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.
On the other hand, the accused respondent attempted to suggest that his father sustained injury when he fell from the roof while putting up khapra.
On the basis of the information received from the hospital that the deceased Tulsiram was brought to the hospital by the respondent Suresh in unconscious companydition, Marg Information No.
From the perusal of the statement of eye witnesses Babulal PW 2 , Sawla Bai PW 3 , Dinesh PW 4 it seems that the incident had taken place at the spur of the moment.
The appellant himself took his father namely Tulsiram to the hospital.
0/30/96 was registered under section 174 Cr.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the period which has elapsed, numberuseful purpose would be served in sending appellant back to jail, I therefore set aside the jail sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and instead award the sentence to the appellant for a period of imprisonment already undergone by him.
J Leave granted.
Dinesh Maheshwari.,
P 19 came to be registered at police station, Amla.
The appellant has remained in jail for a period of three months and twenty one days i.e. from 20.05.1996.
Assailing the order aforesaid, learned companynsel for the appellant State has strenuously argued that the High Court has modified and reduced the sentence awarded by the Trial Court without any companyent reason and without any justification.
P.C. However, when it was numbericed from the statements of PW 3 Sawalbai, PW 6 Basanti Bai and PW 10 Sarpach Sukhlal that the respondent was seen hitting his father, he was arrested on 20.05.1996 and FIR in Crime No.
