Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hanumant & Ors. vs The State Of M.P. Judgement Given By: ... on 8 October, 2013
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JUDICATURE
AT JABALPUR
Criminal Appeal No.510/1997
Hanumant and others
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
***
Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Chandrakant Mishra, GA for the State.
Date of hearing: 08.10.2013
Date of Judgment: 08.10.2013
JUDGMENT
1. The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by impugned judgment dated 28/2/1997 passed by the learned Second Additional Judge, Katni in S.T.No.14/1993 whereby appellants have been convicted under Sections 148 and 326/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo RI for 1 month and RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo RI for 6 months.
2. Facts, in short, are that on 7.1.1992, complainant Rikhiram went to Pipariya along with Suresh Burman, Sambhoo Kol and Arun @ Gudda. Initially they consumed liquor with one Pardeshi and thereafter, they 2 had gone for fishing. In the way, appellant Pandu met them. There was some altercation took place between Suresh and Pandu. Rikhiyram tried to intervene them, the appellant Pandu assaulted Rikhiyram by a sword on his hand and fled away from the spot. Suresh and Arun chased him up to his house where other appellants came over there and they made assault on Suresh and Arun by using the sharp edged weapons like axe (Kulhadi) and Bakka. Complainant Rikhiram lodged a report Ex.P/10 at Police Station Tikuri about the incident. All injured were sent for their medical examinations. Appellants were arrested for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 307/149 of IPC.
3. After usual investigation, the appellants were charge sheeted before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katni, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Session. Learned Sessions Judge has framed the charges under Sections 148 and 307/149 of IPC against the appellants. Appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. Ambika Prasad (DW1), Lal Singh (DW2) and Savitri Bai (DW3) have been examined as defence witnesses of the appellants.
4. On appraisal of the evidence on record, learned trial Court convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 148 and 326/149 of IPC instead of Section 307 of IPC and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove, hence this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that 3 the trial Court has committed illegality in not appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective. He further submitted that the case of the appellants would not fall under Section 326 of IPC. At the most the offence committed by the appellants is come under Section 324 of IPC. He further submitted that appellants had already suffered the jail sentence of fifteen days during trial and after recording the conviction they were remained in custody for about one month and five days. Therefore, in total the appellants have already suffered the jail sentence of one month and twenty days. Ends of justice would be met if the jail sentence of appellants is reduced to the period already undergone and fine amount may be enhanced.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the appellant and supported and justified the impugned judgment.
7. I have perused the impugned judgment along with record and statements of the witnesses.
8. Complainant Rikhiram (PW3) has partly supported the case of prosecution and stated that appellant Raju Sahu has assaulted Suresh Burman when he tried to intervene then Raju has assaulted him by sword thereby he sustained injuries on his left hand, back side of writs and fingers of the right hand. He further stated that at this juncture appellant Hanumant has also assaulted Rikhiram by danda. Thereafter Rikhiram lodged the report Ex.P/10.
49. Suresh Kumar (PW4) stated that when he was going with Rikhiram, Gudda and Sambhoo, appellant Pandu met them near his house, he called them for smoking Bidi and other appellants, who were hidden in the house of Pandu, came together and assaulted him by sword and farsa. When witnesses Rikhiram and Gudda intervened, they have also been assaulted by Raju, Munna, Hiralal, Hanumant and Pandu by sword and farsa, therefore, they sustained injuries.
10. Arun Kumar (PW6) is also an injured person. He supported the statement of Suresh Kumar and stated that all appellants were hidden in the house of Pandu. Initially, they assaulted Suresh Kumar when this witness and Rikhiram tried to intervene, all appellants have assaulted them.
11. The statements of three witnesses substantially corroborated by medical evidence. Dr. Sashi Saravgi (PW1) stated that she examined injured Arun and found four incised wounds on his body which were grievous in nature. She further stated that she found four incised wounds on the body of Suresh which were caused by sharp edged weapons. She further stated that she found five incised wounds on the body of complainant Rikhiram, all injuries were caused by sharp object. She further stated that she referred all these three injured persons for their X-ray examinations to the Radiologist. She admitted in her cross-examination that she is unable to state that any bone was broken or any fracture caused in the bone without any X-ray report. She further 5 admitted that none of the injuries was caused on the vital part of the body of the injured. She further stated that she is unable to state that complainant Rikhiram was remained in the hospital for more than twenty days.
12. The aforesaid medical evidence on record is supported by the statement of Dr. Sashi Saravgi (PW1) and further finds support in the first information report Ex.P/10. In these circumstances, it is proved on record that appellants were members of unlawful assembly and they assaulted the injured persons Rikhiram, Suresh and Arun by using sharp edged weapons, thereby they sustained incised wounds but none of the injuries was found on the vital part of the body of the injured as well as prosecution has failed to produce any X-ray report on record. Dr. Sashi Saravgi (PW1) is also unable to state that any bone was fractured, therefore, the trial Court has committed illegality in recording the conviction under Section 326 of IPC. However, it is sufficient evidence on record that appellants have assaulted the complainant Rikhiram, Suresh and Arun in furtherance of common object by causing bodily injury to them and they have caused the incised wounds by using the sharp edged weapons. In these circumstances, the offence under Section 148 of IPC is duly proved on record and further offence under Section 324 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC is also proved on record.
13. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction recorded under Section 326/149 of IPC is hereby set aside. Conviction recorded under Section 148 of IPC is 6 hereby affirmed.
14. As far as sentence is concerned, the incident took place in the year 1992, i.e. 21 years have elapsed and the appellants have already suffered the jail sentence of one month and twenty days, it would be harsh to send the appellants back to jail for serving out the balance of jail sentence after lapse of decade since commission of offence, therefore, their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone (i.e. one months and twenty days). In this way, appellants are sentenced for offence under Section 148 of IPC to the period already undergone and fine of Rs. 200/- (which has already been deposited). The appellants are convicted under Section 324/149 of IPC and sentence for the period already undergone (i.e. one month and twenty days) and fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 3000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they shall further suffer the jail sentence of SI for two months. Appellants are directed to deposit the enhanced fine amount of Rs. 2000/- each before the trial Court, within two months from the date of judgment.
15. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged.
16. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately, along with a copy of this judgment for necessary compliance.
(G.S. Solanki) JUDGE ravi