Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laxmi Narayan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 June, 2016
1 Criminal Revision No.1551 of 2009
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH KAKADE
Cri.Revision No.1551/2009
APPLICANTS: 1. Laxmi Narayan S/o Chunni Lal,
Aged about 36 years,
2. Chunni Lal S/o Munshi Lal,
Aged about 62 years,
Both R/o Village Bansia,
P.S.Ahmadpur, District-Sehore (MP)
Versus
RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Madhya Pradesh through
District Magistrate, P.S.Ahmadpur,
District- Jabalpur (MP)
2. Kishore Singh S/o Rati Ram,
Aged about 50 years,
3. Parvat Singh S/o Rati Ram, Aged
about 57 years,
4. Mohan Lal S/o Rati Ram Aged
about 45 years,
5. Chain Singh S/o Rati Ram, Aged
about 42 years
All R/o Village-Barnawat, District-
Sehore (MP)
6. Munshi Lal S/o Bhagirath, Aged
about 56 years,
R/o Village-Jhiri Satanwadi, District-
Sehore (MP)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Ashish Sinha, Advocate for the applicants. Shri R.N.Yadav, PL for the respondent no.1/State.
2 Criminal Revision No.1551 of 2009 Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate for the respondents no. 2 to to 6.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(O R D E R) Delivered on: 23.06.2016 Through this revision, the applicants/complainants have assailed the judgment dated 30.05.09 passed in Criminal Appeal No.183/2007 by learned Special Judge (SC & ST) Act, District- Sehore, whereby learned Appellate Court has reduced the jail sentence of six months awarded by learned JMFC, Sehore in RT No.143/05 vide judgment dated 23.08.07 to respondents no.2 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") under Section 323 of IPC, and instead of that, fine of Rs.1,000/- was imposed on each of the accused. However, the accused were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC as it has not been found proved by the appellate Court.
2. The prosecution story is that on 27.12.96 in the evening at about 7 O'clock, accused have assaulted the applicants by means of lathi and farsi over some dispute taken place earlier, as a result of which applicants received grievous injuries. FIR Ex.P/1 was lodged by applicants. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and completing the investigation, the police charge sheeted the accused. The respondent no.2 Kishor Singh was charged and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 294,323,325,506 Part II and Section 324 of IPC and respondent no.3 to 6 were charged and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 294,323,325 and 506 Part II IPC.
3. The accused abjured the guilt hence they were put to trial.
3 Criminal Revision No.1551 of 2009
4. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, prosecution has examined seven witnesses including the applicants/complainants and exhibited the documents P/1 to P/12. During accused statement they denied all the evidence putforth against them and their defence was of false implication. Defence examined Amarsingh (DW.1) and Roopsingh Rathore (DW.2) in support of its case.
5. Learned JMFC has convicted the accused persons under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for six months each under Section 323 IPC and one year R.I.each under Section 324 IPC with fine of Rs.200/-, 200/- respectively with default stipulations. Learned Special Judge, in appeal, has acquitted the accused under Section 324 of IPC, and further reduced the sentence of six months R.I. imposed under Section 323 IPC to fine of Rs.1,000/- each. Aggrieved thereby, the applicants have come up in this revision.
6. Shri Ashish Sinha, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned trial Court committed grave error in acquitting the accused under Section 324 of IPC, and thereafter reducing the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by learned trial Court under Section 323 of IPC. He further submits that undue weightage has been given to minor omissions and contradictions in order to set aside the conviction of accused under Section 324 of IPC. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel submits that the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court suffers with surmises and conjectures, therefore, it may be set aside and that of learned trial Court be restored.
4 Criminal Revision No.1551 of 2009
7. Shri R.N.Yadav, learned PL appearing for the State and Shri Satyam Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the accused have supported the judgment delivered by learned appellate Court and prays for dismissal of this revision.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses; the material exhibits tendered by the prosecution; and the impugned judgment. After reflecting over the matter, I am implicitly satisfied that on merits, the judgment passed by learned appellate Court, warrants no interference.
9. Learned appellate Court after elaborate scrutiny of depositions of prosecution witnesses has rightly held, which reads as under:-
**tgkWa rd lafgrk dh /kkjk 324 ds rgr naMuh; vijk/k dk iz'u gS izFke LFkku ij rks vfHk;qDr fd'kksj dks NksM+dj vU; fdlh vfHk;qDr@vihykFkhZ ds fo:) mDr /kkjk ds rgr vkjksi vkjksfir ugha fd;k x;k gS A mDr fLFkfr esa izFke n`"V;k vfHk;qDr@vihykFkhZ fd'kksj dks NksM+dj 'ks"k vfHk;qDrx.k dh lafgrk dh /kkjk 324 ds rgr nks"k flf) ugha Bgjk;h tk ldrh A fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk lHkh vfHk;[email protected] dks lafgrk dh /kkjk 324 ds rgr vijk/k dk nks"k fl) Bgjk;k tkdj oS/kkfud =qfV dh xbZ gS A**
10. Learned appellate Court also rightly come to conclusion that:-
**vfHk;qDr fd'kksj ds fo:) lafgrk dh /kkjk 324 ds rgr ;g vkjksi gS fd mlus pqUuhyky o mlds yM+ds y{ehukjk;.k dks /kkjnkj gfFk;kj QlhZ ls ekjihV dj LosPNk migfr dkfjr dh A mYys[kuh; gS fd Qfj;knh pqUuhyky vkSj mlds iq= y{ehukjk;.k dks /kkjnkj gfFk;kj dh dksbZ pksV fpfdRlh; lk{; ds vuqlkj ugha ik;h xbZ gS A MkDVj vkuUn lqpkjh ¼v0lk7½ ds 5 Criminal Revision No.1551 of 2009 vuqlkj vkgrksa dks vk;h pksVsa l[r ,oa cksfFkjs gfFk;kj ls vk ldrh Fkh A lkFk gh pqUuhyky ¼vlk02½ us vius eq[; ijh{k.k ds iSjk@2 esa fd'kksj }kjk QlhZ ls flj esa ekjuk crk;k gS tcfd vius izfrijh{k.k ds iSjk@13 esa fd'kksj }kjk mYVh QlhZ dh pksaV igqapkuk crk;k x;k gS A fo}ku U;kf;d naMkf/kdkjh us Li"V :i ls ,slk dksbZ fu"d"kZ fn;k gS ftlls ;g fof}r gks fd vkgrksa dks /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls migfr dkfjr dh xbZ A fo}ku U;kf;d naMkf/kdkjh us ykBh dks ?kkrd midj.k ekudj vkgrksa dks [krjukd vk;q/k ,oa lk/kuksa }kjk migfr dkfjr fd;k tkuk izekf.kr ekuk gS A izFke LFkku ij rks vfHk;qDr fd'kksj ds vykok 'ks"k vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) lafgrk dh /kkjk 324 ds rgr vkjksi vkjksfir ugha gS A f}rh; LFkku ij vfHk;qDr fd'kksj ds fo:) /kkjnkj gfFk;kj QlhZ ls migfr dkfjr djus dk Li"V vkjksi gS A ,slh fLFkfr esa /kkjnkj gfFk;kj QlhZ ls pksV igqapk;k tkuk lk{; ds vk/kkj ij izekf.kr ugha gqvk gS vkSj rc vfHk;qDr fd'kksj dks Hkh lafgrk dh /kkjk 324 ds rgr vijk/k dk fl) nks"k ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrk A fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds vfHk;qDrx.k dks lafgrk dh /kkjk 324 ds rgr vijk/k ds fy;s nks"k fl) Bgjkdj rF; ,oa fof/k dh =qfV dh gS A vr% vfHk;[email protected] dh lafgrk /kkjk 324 ds rgr vijk/k dh nks"kflf) vikLr dh tkdj ikfjr naMkns'k fujLr fd;k tkrk gS A**
11. Learned counsel for the applicants could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by learned Appellate Court.
12. The present revision deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
13. Learned Courts below be intimated forthwith.
(Subhash Kakade) Judge.
6 Criminal Revision No.1551 of 2009 Jk.