S C. Jain, J. - (1.) THE appellant Buddin has challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri whereby he was convicted under Section 307, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RI. for 4 years.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention towards the circumstances which led to this quarrel resulting in the injury to Sri Nanhu son of Imam All. THE cause of the quarrel was a fight between the children of both sides. THEre was no intention to commit murder by inflicting these injuries. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the nature of the injuries were found simple in nature and none of the injury was on the vital part of the body. According to the learned counsel for the appellant this incident took place in the year 1975 and the appellant has undergone humiliation and suffering during this entire period of trial and appeal. According to the learned counsel for the appellant no case under Section 307,I.P.C. is made out against this accused. Keeping in view the evidence and circumstances which have come on record, the learned A.G.A. points out that as far as the injuries are concerned there were four injuries which were found on the person of the injured but according to the medical report these injuries were simple in nature and they are not on the vital part of the body. The doctor who appeared as P.W. 5 has also opined the injuries as simple in nature. From the evidence on record I find that the cause of the incident was the quarrel between the children of both the parties. The intention to commit murder is not apparent from the evidence on record. The nature of the injuries is also simple and the injuries are not on the vital part of the body. Keeping in view of the nature of the injuries and the statement of the doctor and other circumstances, I find that it is not a case under Section 307 of I.P.C. but it is a case which can come within the purview of Section 324, I.P.C. 1 modify the judgment of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur to this extent that the conviction under Section 307, I.P.C. is set aside and the appellant is convicted under Section 324, I.P.C.
(3.) ON the point of sentence it has been pointed out that the incident is of the year 1975 and the appellant has faced the trial for a long time and this appeal has been listed after 19 years. He also pointed out that the appellant has remained in jail for sometime. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and the offence which has been proved under Section 324, I.P.C. I hereby modify the order on the point of sentence passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, and reduce the sentence from four years to six months with the benefits of the provisions of Section 428, Cr. P.C. that the period already undergone shall be set off.;