Devinder Kumar Jain JUDGMENT
C.K. Thakker, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh on December 2, 1994 in Sessions Trial No. 258 of 1993 and confirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) on September 11, 2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 817 of 1994.
3. The case of the prosecution was that on March 3, 1993 between 7.00 and 8.00 a.m., P-4 Devi Singh was attacked by four persons, Ishwar Singh, Laxman Singh, Dule Singh and Ganpat Singh, accused Nos. 1 to 4 respectively. All the accused were, therefore, charged for commission of offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). After usual investigation, the matter was committed to the Court of Session in view of charge under Section 307, IPC which was exclusively triable by a Court of Session.
4. The learned Judge, vide his Judgment and Order dated December 2, 1994, held that the prosecution was successful in partly establishing the case. On the basis of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the trial Court held that it would be appropriate to give benefit of doubt to accused Nos. 2 to 4 and accordingly, the trial Court acquitted three accused. Regarding accused No. 1 Ishwar Singh (appellant herein), the Court ruled that it was proved `beyond reasonable doubt' that he had attacked victim Devi Singh and had administered knife blows on the person of the injured. Accordingly, the Court convicted appellant- accused No. 1 for an offence punishable under Section 307, IPC.
5. Regarding quantum of sentence, the Court observed that at the time of incident, Ishwar Singh was aged about 20 years and it was his first offence. Considering those factors, the trial Court ordered him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for six months more.
6. The order of conviction and sentence was challenged by accused No. 1-appellant herein by filing Criminal Appeal No. 817 of 1994. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) again considered the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court and held that no error either of fact or of law had been committed by the trial Court and the order of conviction recorded by the High Court was in consonance with law. Regarding sentence also, the High Court held that it could not be said that the sentence awarded on the appellant was excessive or harsh. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant who was on bail was directed to surrender and to undergo the remainder part of the sentence.
7. The said order is challenged in the present appeal. On January 15, 2008, notice was issued by this Court. On August 13, 2008, at the oral prayer of learned Counsel for the appellant, injured Devi Singh was ordered to be joined as party respondent No. 2 and notice was issued to him by making it returnable within two weeks. The notice was served and the injured appeared through a lawyer.
8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.........