Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 189 OF 2009

LAKHAN & ORS.                           Appellants

                VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                    Respondent

O R D E R

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment  

and  order  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Madhya  

Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.  

607/2000  dated  09.10.2007.   By  the  impugned  

judgment and order, the High Court has confirmed  

the order of conviction and sentence passed by the  

IInd Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Ashoknagar,  

District-Guna in Sessions Trial No. 339/1997 dated  

07.08.2000.  

2. The Appellants were charged and tried by the  

Sessions Court for the offences under Sections 147,  

148, and Section 308 read with Section 149 of the  

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short). After  

the  trial,  the  Sessions  Court  has  convicted  the

Page 2

2

appellants  for  the  offences  punishable  under  

Sections  147  and  148  of  the  IPC,  and  awarded  

punishment  of  rigorous  imprisonment  for  one  year  

and a fine of Rs.200/- each and for the offences  

punishable under Section 308 read with Section 149  

of  the  IPC,  awarded  punishment  of  rigorous  

imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.500/-  

each with a default clause.  

3. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and  

sentence  passed  by  the  Sessions  Court,  the  

Appellants  approached  the  High  Court  in  Criminal  

Appeal  No.  607  of  2000.   The  High  Court,  after  

considering the judgment and order passed by the  

Trial Court and further after re-appreciating the  

evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that  

the  Sessions  Judge  has  not  committed  any  error  

whatsoever which would call for its interference.  

It  is  the  correctness  or  otherwise  of  the  said  

order which is the subject matter of this appeal.  

4. Sh. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing  

for  the  Appellants,  would  submit  that  the  Trial  

Court having come to the conclusion that the right  

of private defence is available to the Appellants,

Page 3

3

ought not to have convicted and sentenced them for  

offences  punishable  under  Sections  147,  148,  and  

308 read with Section 149 of the IPC.  The learned  

senior counsel would further submit that the High  

Court, without properly appreciating the evidences  

on record and also the judgment and order passed by  

the Sessions Court, ought not to have confirmed the  

order and judgment passed by the Sessions Court.  

5. Sh.  C.D.  Singh,  learned  counsel  appearing  

for the State of Madhya Pradesh, ably justifies the  

impugned  judgment  and  order  passed  by  the  High  

Court.  

6. We  have  carefully  perused  the  order  of  

sentence and conviction passed by the Trial Court.  

The Trial Court, in the course of the order, has  

observed  that  the  Appellants,  although  have  the  

right  of  private  defence  but,  have  exceeded  the  

same and, therefore, convicted the Appellants for  

the aforesaid offences.   

7. In  the  peculiar  facts  and  circumstance  of  

the case, we are of the view that, while confirming  

the judgment passed by the Trial Court and the High

Page 4

4

Court, it would be in the interest of justice to  

modify the sentence awarded by the Trial Court by  

reducing the same from three years to one year and  

enhancing  the  fine  amount  from  Rs.500/-  to  

Rs.25,000/- each for the offences punishable under  

Section 308 read with Section 149 of the IPC.  

8. Resultantly,  while  partly  allowing  this  

appeal,  we  maintain  the  sentence  awarded  by  the  

Trial Court to the Appellants under Sections 147,  

148 of the IPC and modify the sentence awarded to  

the them under Section 308 read with Section 149 of  

the IPC by reducing it from three years to one year  

and increasing the amount of fine from Rs.500/- to  

Rs.25,000/- each to be deposited before the Trial  

Court within four weeks' time from the date of this  

Court’s  order.   In  case  of  default,  they  would  

undergo  further  imprisonment  of  six  months.  Both  

the sentences shall run concurrently.   

9. Since the Appellants are on bail, their bail  

bonds stand cancelled.  However, four weeks' time  

is granted to them to surrender and to serve out  

the remaining part of the sentence.

Page 5

5

10. The  amount  of  fine  so  deposited  shall  be  

distributed  equally  to  each  one  of  the  injured  

witnesses,  namely,  Jagannath  (PW-2),  Mulua  @  

Mulchand  (PW-3),  Ramko  (PW-5),  Sukhlal  (PW-6),  

Brajendra (PW-9) and Dabu (PW-10).   

11. On the above terms, the Criminal Appeal is  

disposed of.

Ordered accordingly.  

........................J. (H.L. DATTU)

........................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

NEW DELHI DECEMBER 05, 2012