The prosecution case & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, , wherein, having regard to the peculiar facts & Ors.

Judgment

#1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of sentence dated 25/27.08.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 06 months.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the FIR was registered on the complaint of Mahipat Ram. According to him, on 21.11.2005, while a Hawan was being conducted at the Panchayat Ghar, Harjeet Singh received information from a contractor that accused Sheo Dutt had obstructed the construction of the boundary wall of the Water-Works. Harjeet Singh, accompanied by the complainant, Jagdish (deceased), and other villagers, went to the spot where they found accused Balraj demolishing the wall. Upon their objection, the accused raised a lalkara, -1- 205 CRA-S-1767-SB-2008 (O&M) following which 8-9 persons armed with lathis, gandasis and other weapons arrived and assaulted the complainant and Jagdish. As per the prosecution, the present appellant Shankar Lal inflicted two gandasi blows on the complainant, while Sheo Dutt struck Jagdish with the reverse side of a tangli. Thereafter, Ramesh and Bansi Lal allegedly caused lathi blows to Jagdish, and the assault ended only after intervention by Sukh Ram Panch, Sham Lal and Baldev Singh. Consequently, FIR No.238 dated 21.11.2005 was registered at Police Station Sadar Sirsa under Sections 302, 323, 324, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

#3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though initially the case was registered under Sections 302, 323, 324, 506, 148 and 149 of IPC against the appellant but after adjudication the accused Sheo Dutt held guilty for an offence under Section 304 (Part-II) and the present appellant held guilty for an offence under Section 324 of IPC respectively. Accordingly, the accused Sheo Dutt was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 07 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 01 year under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC and the present appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 06 months under Section 324 of IPC.

#4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the injuries attributed to the present appellant were caused only to the injured-complainant, Mahipat Ram (PW-6). He has also submitted that -2- 205 CRA-S-1767-SB-2008 (O&M) according to the medical evidence, none of the injuries allegedly inflicted by the appellant on Mahipat Ram were opined by the doctor to be dangerous to life. He further submits that there were six accused in the present case, out of which, four had already been acquitted by the trial Court and the main accused Sheo Dutt, who attributed injuries to the deceased, has been expired and the appeal filed by him stood abated vide order dated 07.04.2026.

#5. It is submitted that, out of the substantive sentence awarded, the appellant has already undergone incarceration for a period of 06 months and 06 days and has remained on bail pursuant to the order passed by this Court suspending the sentence during the pendency of the present appeal. It is further submitted, on instructions, that having regard to the nature of the offence, the appellant's clean antecedents, and the fact that he is not involved in any other criminal case, this Court may, while maintaining the conviction, reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by him, subject to enhancement of the fine, in order to meet the ends of justice.

#6. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 22.02.2026 and has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the appellant has rightly been convicted based upon the evidence available on record and does not deserve any concession and prays that the present appeal be dismissed on merits.

#7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. -3- 205 CRA-S-1767-SB-2008 (O&M)

#8. A perusal of the case file shows that the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and closed the evidence. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC was thereafter recorded, wherein the appellant pleaded innocence and asserted that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. The appellant examined 04 witnesses in his defence.

#9. As regards the allegations the present case, prosecution alleges that the appellant caused injuries to both the complainant and the deceased. However, the injuries sustained by the deceased were inflicted by the co-accused, Sheo Dutt, and not by the present appellant. Further, the injuries attributed to the present appellant were caused only to the injured-complainant, Mahipat Ram (PW-6) who had been convicted under Section 324 of IPC for 03 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and as per the opinion of the doctors none of the injuries allegedly inflicted by the appellant on Mahipat Ram were declared to be dangerous to life. Further, as per record, the FIR was registered in the year 2005, trial proceeded, this appeal was filed in the year 2008 and the appellant, who is around 60 years old, has already faced a protracted criminal proceeding of more than 20 years.

#10. While considering the appellant's prayer for reduction of sentence and without opining upon the merits of the case, this Court finds that the considerable lapse of time since the commission of the offence, coupled with the prolonged pendency of the proceedings, is a relevant mitigating circumstance. Further, during this period, as per learned State counsel, the appellant has not been involved in any other criminal case and has maintained a clean record, indicating his reformation. Moreover, -4- 205 CRA-S-1767-SB-2008 (O&M) the offences are not so heinous as to disentitle him from the relief sought. Further, as per the custody certificate dated 22.02.2026, the appellant has already undergone 06 months and 06 days of the substantive sentence out of the total sentence of 03 years rigorous imprisonment. These factors deserve due weightage while determining the alteration of sentence awarded by the trial Court.

#11. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 654, wherein, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including the long lapse of time and other mitigating factors, the sentence awarded to the accused was reduced. The ratio of the said decision lends support to the course being adopted in the present case. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: “23. This Court, in catena of cases before it, while maintaining conviction, had exercised its discretion and had reduced the substantive sentence considering long passage of time, absence of criminal antecedents and other mitigating circumstances. For instance, in Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, while maintaining conviction for offences including Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC, this Court reduced sentence considering the age of the matter, the sentence already undergone and taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The long lapse of time without any material indicating repetition of similar criminal conduct is also a relevant consideration while moulding sentence. The appellant has already undergone the rigours of criminal proceedings for over a decade since 2014.” -5- 205 CRA-S-1767-SB-2008 (O&M)

#12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recognized that prolonged criminal litigation is by itself a relevant mitigating circumstance for modifying the sentence. Where an accused has lived for years, or even decades, under the shadow of criminal proceedings, facing the uncertainty of the outcome and the social stigma associated with such prosecution, the said experience constitutes a significant factor that deserves to be taken into account while moulding the sentence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that such a principle is particularly applicable in cases involving non-heinous offences, where the ends of justice can be adequately served by adopting a reformative and proportionate approach to sentencing rather than a purely retributive one.

#13. For the reasons mentioned above, the conviction for the offence under Section 324 of IPC is hereby maintained. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellant has already faced the agony of the protracted prosecution and suffered mental harassment for a long period of 20 years, the present appeal is accordingly partly allowed and the jail sentence as awarded by the trial Court is altered to the extent that the same is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, subject to enhanced fine of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the trial Court concerned within a period of two months from today.

#14. Bail bonds/surety bonds furnished by the appellant stand discharged.

#15. It is clarified that in case the aforesaid fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the same would result in reviving -6- 205 CRA-S-1767-SB-2008 (O&M) the jail sentence awarded by the Courts below and the appellant will have to then undergo the remaining jail sentence.

#16. The pending miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed of as such.

21.07.2026 ‘Sandeep’ (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: Yes Yes No No -7-