(Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari, JJ.)
Rambaran _______________________________________ Appellant;
v.
State of M.P. ___________________________________ Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2020 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6227 of 2017), decided on January 7, 2020
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant herein stands convicted under Sections 326 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC for five years. Notice was issued limited to the question of sentence. The appellant is stated to have undergone approximately three years of custody.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant invites our attention to the reasoning of the High Court at paragrpah 20(iv). The relevant extract of which reads as follows:—
“….this Court is of the considered view that looking to the background of the incident which arose on the petty issue of carrying away of fire wood which is a precious commodity in rural areas, impulse more than intent may have been behind the offence and also that the appellants do not appear to have criminal antecedents.”
4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the said reasoning to submit that the assault by the appellant fell under Section 326 IPC and the medical report has also confirmed fracture of the parietal bone.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the very reasoning assigned by the High Court itself, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the sentence of the appellant deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone. It is ordered accordingly.
6. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6227/2017
Rambaran _______________________________________ Petitioner(s)
v.
State of M.P ___________________________________ Respondent
Date: 07-01-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajeev Kumar Bansal, AOR
Mr. M.P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Akshay K. Ghai, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Adv.
Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak, Adv.
Ms. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Khatri, Adv.
Mr. Varun K. Chopra, Adv.
Mr. Shubham Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
7. Leave granted.
8. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
———
